Talk:Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misleading lead

The lead is misleading. A person who has no knowledge of the subject would think that these terrible events happened because of oppression (which culminated with the creation of Banovina Hrvatska, the biggest legal Croatian entity in modern Croatian history?). That is misleading and only Half-truth. Ethnic hatred was the main reason and fuil for the events, followed with other reasons. There are no sources in the articles which are saying otherwise.

These two sentences should be joined:

The 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies towards Croats by the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920's and 1930's following World War I fueled the rise of nationalist and far-right movements. Ethnic hatred of Serbs and resentment of Serbian centralized power led to the formation of the Ustaša, an ultranationalist and fascist Croatian movement that was founded by Ante Pavelić. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC) : How is it misleading when the source backs it up? Jozo Tomasevich a half Croat half Serb historian, in his book states that anti Croatian policies would lead to the Ustase. Einstein would even write a letter in distane for the persecution of Croatian intellectuals through violence by Yugoslav police. It's not a half truth or misleading sentence. And would be misleading to downplay or change it. What do you think fueled ethnic hatred? Surely readers would be curious as to what partly motivated their sadistic hatred? Having a larger Croatia that wasn't run by Croatians but answered to the Yugoslav government doesn't seem like such such a gift as you imply. But again pov is meaningless. Facts are what matter.

Tomasevich states:

"The anti-Croatian policies of the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920’s and 1930’s. especially the assassination of Croatian Peasant Party leaders in Parliament in June 1928 by a deputy of the main Serbian political party, were largely responsible for the creation, growth, and nature of Croatian nationalist forces. These culminated in the Ustasha movement and ultimately its anti-Serbian policies in the Second World War."

I am sure that Peacemaker67 can attest to the solidity to Tomasevich's works. These works make up most of the Yugoslav WWII articles.

The intro isn't justifying the genocide but giving insight as to what contributed to it being carried out. What fueled the ethnic hatred of Serbs? No matter how grossly disproportionate the Ustase response was, somethings contributed to their hatred. As is described by Tomasevich. And leaving that out would be misleading, half truth and trying to make it appear as if the group spawned out of thin air.

74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. That is what Tomasevich says (2001, not 1975). He also says that the wartime Ustasha policies were completely out of proportion with the anti-Croat policies of the interwar governments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Half true, yet again. It contributed but the main reason for the frustration was the fact that Croats did not have an independent state of their own and that was blamed on Serbian government or Serb people, who gave more than half a million of lives for their victory and new state. I for one think that the blame should fall on their elites and not the other party. If you are coming to live in a joint house and have a poor dowry, what can you expect? Plus, this is all given from the 21st century POV as a number of states in the 20s and 30s was heavily centralised, and we are talking about Europe, mind you. Adding the assassination fact in the same sentence just after the part which states that anti-Croatian policies contributed to it, can give one the illusion that it was a plot by a larger group of people and Serb-dominated administration, and not a killing by a former veteran with a short fuse over one ugly remark given by Radic. That is also misleading. The main motivation of the group was not some righteous fight against opressors but the fight for an independent state with constant use of terror and later on - genocide. This is also a part of the whole story, as the cause root of Serbo-Croatian conflict is the fact that Serbs as a minority had special rights in the AU, as soldiers and the main force behind the Military Frontier, compared to Croats who were mostlypeasants and second-class citizens in a Hungarian/Austrian dominated state. Once again, I think that the intro should be reworked and rebalanced. Less is more. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant here. We go with what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::To Peacemaker67, exactly. He seems to me the most neutral and precise historian. And explicitly states how the sadistic actions of the Ustase were very much disproportionate. To Sadkσ , What? Boiling it down to Croat jealousy of Serbs over being given certain special status during the Austrian rule? Despite Croats and Serbs living in peace during and after that era? That would be deemed misleading and a half-truth. Let alone conflict between the two groups span back to before the Austrian Empire as discussed in the article. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not about my opinion, but a comment on a broader issue which is one of my several interests. Plus, we have a source, a single source. My main comment is that the lead gives more credit to state Centralisation politics as a contributing factor to later genocide compared to ethnic hatred. That seems - strange. It is not "boiling it down" but I'm giving you additional information, because the conflict did not appear only in the 20th century. It has deeper roots (Orthodox and Catholics and what not). I found this and other info. in excellent works by academic sr:Čedomir Popov and Vasilije Krestić. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: I said that pointing to just temporary better perks allotted to Serbs in the Austrian Empire as the main reason is boiling it down considering back and forth tensions occured since the schisms of Christianity. Multiple sources support this not just a single one. Also ethnic hatred is not an isolated thing. Events can contribute to ethnic hatred. They aren not seperate . Nor is it justifying ethnic hatred but giving insight as to how these things came to be. I don’t think anyone would think Ustase didn’t have an extreme hatred for Serbs. How else would they commit such atrocities?74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Krestić? You can't be serious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not all of his works should be easily excluded because of his outbursts in the 90s and later on. A number of people failed that big test. His works from the 80s and earlier period are notable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I partly agree with both sides here. On the one hand, Tomasevich gives important and necessary background information on the issue. But it's also important not to dismiss ethnic hatred of Serbs as a primary factor in the Ustaša and Croatian extremist movements. I think a balance can be found between the two for the lede, without making it appear as though it's excusing Ustaša actions. That's what I've tried to do. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

:::I agree with your revision. Its seems most fair and straightforward.74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that support your contention that hatred of Serbs was a primary factor for the Ustashas, not the endorsement of IP editors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of that. It was more of a comment regarding the dispute in this thread. One source in the article (Ramet) already lists ethnic hatred of Serbs as a driving factor. Let's not pretend like Ustaša hatred of Serbs is debatable though. It's akin to questioning whether the Nazis were motivated by a hatred of Jews. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::He said primary factor. He didn’t say it wasn’t a factor. Discussion in this thread was about what drove the hatred. You wouldn’t say the Islamic extremists appeared out of nowhere in the Middle-East and weren’t in part formed due to Western and Soviet invasions. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as Krestić is concerned, all of his works must be examined in light of his involvement in the Memorandum and support of Milošević. It is unlikely that his Serb-chauvinistic views in the 90s represented a sudden change in his outlook. This goes double for anything he wrote about Croats vis a vis Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Thе introduction looks like a shameful attempt to relativize and justify genocide. The introduction may lead to the conclusion that the extermination of the ethnic group arose in response to some of King's moves, not as a consequence of ultranationalism and Nazi racial ideology. Such things are unacceptable in the case of fascist totalitarian regimes. All the changes I have made are mentioned below with references. Is there a scientific consensus that 6 January Dictatorship is a key event that caused mass crimes and genocide? I don't think so. This looks like WP:GEVAL. Is there any other reliable source besides Tomasevic, 45 years old? There should be no place on Wikipedia to relativize and negate Nazi ideologies. A really sad moment...--WEBDuB (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution for all would be to leave a stable version without the background of Ustasha ideology, as in the The Holocaust article. Fascism is always fascism. No further explanation is needed, especially no relativization.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: Claiming GEVAL is grossly misleading. Nowhere in the intro is genocide “justified”. Revisionism of historical accounts that lead to the genocide would however be shameful. There is no such thing as a just genocide. Nor is looking into various accounts that lead to it. Nowhere does it say that it was a proper response to events pre WWII. Events that lead to rise of Nazism is discussed in Wikipedia articles. Another example is the Chetnik article in which part of the reason for Chetnik genocidal campaigns against Muslims and Croats was to an extent motivated by the Ustashe genocide of Serbs. Are you saying that means that what is being claimed is a justification of Chetnik actions? @Peacemaker67: , as you were in this thread already, what is your take? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but that was mentioned in the Background paragraph. Is there any other reliable source besides Tomasevich, 45 years old!? One single source can't lead to the conclusion that will be stated in the lead. There is no a scientific consensus. Furthermore, I didn't write that in the Chetniks article, nor am I against removing that part. I have written many times in critical style even about Serbian nationalist politicians. Especially, I have no intention of writing affirmatively about the Nazis collaborators. It is important to be consistent and objective in criticizing all nationalisms and crimes. Best regards. --WEBDuB (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Genocides can not be justified. If you think otherwise, it is a sad thing. Do not claim the lede tries to justify crimes because one might start to think that you have a battleground mentality. The lede says also that the Ustashe wanted to create a Greater Croatia and killed non-Serbs too. The Ustashe tried to link themselves with notable figures, ideas and events of past centuries but that does not serve as evidence that the Ustashe's origin goes back to those past centuries. Tomashevic' claim is also supported by Cohen [1] and Sindbaek [2]. If you have some source that is relevant, post it here and we can discuss. Otherwise, anything else is just a waste of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's unusual for a genocide page to mention the victim group's prior wrongdoings to the perpetrators in its lede. There's no such thing as justifying genocide but that's what it almost seems like when reading the opener. Anyone that assigns a bad faith motive to editors who have this concern is being unfair. For comparison, the Srebrenica massacre article makes no mention of the crimes against Serbs years prior in the villages surrounding Srebrenica by Muslim forces in its lede. Yet, this was a prime reason why the men of Srebrenica were so despised and later targeted by the Bosnian Serbs. It is talked about in the body instead. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the term anti-Croat policies in the lede but I think that the section could use some tweaking. Also, it would be helpful to expand on what exactly those anti-Croat policies were in the background section. We have the assassination of a Croatian politician and Serb political domination. This is vastly different in nature from the Anti-Serb policies of the Ustashe, yet Anti-Croat and Anti-Serb is used respectively in the sentence, unintentionally appearing to create an equivalency between the two. The wording and structuring could be better. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

: @Peacemaker67: , I think I see what you mean by being descriptive of what Ustashe were, though the Partisan example I think is different. Partisan can mean many different groups in various parts of history. Partisan isn’t synonymous with communists. In fact many Partisan fighters didn’t identify as communists. So I understand the need for differentiation specifying they were “communist led”. However Ustashe are fascist by nature. Kinda like saying fascist fascist Croats. Had seemed redundant. But I digress. Although the Holocaust article makes no mention of fascism as a descriptor of the Nazis, strangely. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Nazis weren't fascist, they were Nazis. There is a difference. A descriptive adjective isn't needed for Nazis as it is inherent in the word and it is widely known what Nazi means. The Ustashe on the other hand are not as widely known, so a descriptor is necessary to establish what their politics were. I have also seen them described as "ultra-nationalist", but fascist sort of encompasses that as well, so it is a better one to use IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

::: Makes sense, I understand now. And agree that the fascist descriptor should remain as you mentioned, except for two things. One, by your logic, it is inherent in the word Ustashe the term fascist as well. As they aren’t anything else. Ustashe like Nazis are specific terms on to themselves. In fact clicking on the hyperlink of it in the intro tkes one to the article describing them as such. Though I agree they are lesser known, but not everyone knows much about the Nazis hence why such articles exist on wikipedia. It’s also why “Nazis” are hyperlinked in any article mentioning them. Incase one might not now as much about them. Also Nazis adhered to Nazism which is a form of fascism. Also the party and ruling regeme are described as fascist. As was Nazi Germany. So I’m not sure what you mean by saying Nazis weren’t fascists. First time I heard that.... Again I am in full agreement with keeping the fascist adjective in the article. Just really confused by your points. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment from a passer-by: I absolutely agree that the Ustashe were a fascist organisation, but is it really necessary to add the adjective fascist to the mention of the Ustashe in the first sentence when it is already mentioned twice in the lede. Stating this three times seems to be a bit overkill when the article is not even specifically about the Ustashe, but about the genocide. --T*U (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

::::: I noticed that the Ustase are already described as fascists already a couples times in the lead, hence my point originally. At first I didn’t see how any reader would go through the intro not knowing they were fascist without the extra third mention. But I guess @Peacemaker67: point is that it being the first few lines in the article it should be stated there. Which makes sense. Correct me if I got your explanation wrong, Peacemaker. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between establishing notability of the topic in the first sentence and the lead then explaining what went on, including the ideology of the Ustase. I've tweaked it a little, but frankly this article is pretty ordinary and it is the body that really needs some solid work put in. The lead will then need to be rewritten based on what the body ends up looking like. Fiddling around with wording of the lead (or infobox) of an article that needs a lot of work is, in my experience, a complete waste of time, unless there are factual errors. This is not one of those. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

::::::: It seems once again the same part of the intro that was sourced is being deleted while info lacking accurate sourcing is added.74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Unsourced POV addition added today.

Usually the burden of proof is on the editor adding content not others. The sentence “ This genocidal campaign was an integral part of Greater Croatia ideology.” is not sourced and is very much POV. Saying that genocide is an integral part of Greater Croatia ideology is ridiculous and I’m amazed a talk section is needed to remove it. Genocide was an integral part of the Ustashe agenda. Not to mention the extermination of Serbs in camps is essentially mentioned twice and saying “Croatian fascist Ustashe” is quite redundant. Also the Ustashe being created by Croats And a Croatian extremis group is already mentioned in the lead. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding of unsourced material and changing wording of sourced material

A reminder that this is a highly contested article. Don't add unsourced material and do not change the wording of sourced material unless you have read the source that is being cited. I have semi-protected it because of the constant unsourced changes in the recent past, particularly by IPs. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we have the article permanently semi-proteced. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

I'm happy if anyone wants to make a case at WP:RFPP, but I was going to wait to see if it calms down after this period of semi expires. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Sadko, you had taken part in adding back unsourced material. Peacemaker67, As I stated above I was the one taking issue with sourced material being manipulated or material added that was unsourced. MAINLY by registered editors (Specifically WEBDuB, please take a look) and some IPs. Making the page semi-protected will not change anything as registered users were adding unsourced content. None of my edits added unsourced or manipulated sourced material. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've not added any unsourced material.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

::::: You originally kept adding that genocide was integral to Greater Croatia ideology before finally correcting it to match the source. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

@OyMosby: Sorry, I stopped making changes to the World War II section. Now, I really think the Background section is too long (it is always controversial with such sensitive topics), almost longer than the part about genocide itself. We have nothing similar in the case of the Holocaust and other genocides, possibly a little about the origins of anti-Semitism, etc. It is a bit like trying to relativize and justify anti-Serb policies. I don’t think the Background should be longer than what is in the introduction. Perhaps a separate article should be made about the Serb-Croat conflict (unfortunately), something similar to the Arab-Jewish one. Most of these events are not directly related to genocide, perhaps with the development of ethnic tensions and the formation of Ustasha. Furthermore, I really don't think it's ok and fair to organize an orchestrated campaign by inviting other users.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't orchestrate anything. Those two users came on their own to this page before so I mention them being that they just recently edited here. As for the background I agree the background is a bit much. Though I think the pre war part is okay in giving insite of tensions from both “sides”. The “intra war” section is quite long. Also post WWI as per Tomasovich’s writings, the Yugoslav dictatorship and “anti-Croat” policies played a role in spawning right-wing movements. I know you were not a fan of that passage but it is what happened. Doesn’t change or justify the desire for genocide and other disproportionate and disgusting practices that came about with the Ustashe themselves. Removing such info would be wrong. OyMosby (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but why do you insist so much on that sentence? That's just one source and it is also misplaced in context. The reader might understand that the dictatorship is ethnically motivated, but in fact it is pro-Yugoslav. More importantly, the source does not directly relate those events to the genocide. That is crucial. More with the development of Ustasha, so that sentence should first be in an article about them. It is especially superfluous in the introduction. The sentence is not wrong, but it is not in the right place. Definitley not for the lead. Please, give me an example of something similar in other articles about genocide. I doubt it, because something like that is generally indecent in the academic world. It is always important to mention the broader context, but here it has gone too far, and looks like the relativization and justification of genocide. Again, the Background section is definitley too long. For instance, the entire five sentences explain Načertanije, an unpublished fantasy-based document that has nothing to do with genocide. No source links them. We need to leave a few sentences about the origin of anti-Serb sentiments, the origins of Ustasha and NDH, the Nazi racial policies and Greater Croatia ideology. --WEBDuB (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I along with a number of editors who think it is worth keeping. I see there was even a discussion about it on the talk page. Tomasovich is RS and heavily used for Balkan articles. He plainly outlines how the dictatorship and anti-Croat policies would lead to movements like the Ustashe being formed and the anti-Serb policies they enact. The intro like the book notes that it was a disproportionate reaction. And since you wish to use other articles as example, the Chetnik page which you brought into the article before, mentions how Chetnik crimes were in part a reaction Ustashe crimes. Does that mean it is justifying killing civilians? Why hide it? It is relevant. And is context. I agree that “Nacertanije” like a number of items mentioned in the background section seems like a coat rack of back and forth tensions between Croats and Serbs. However it was published. And if examples of anti-Serb sentiment is mentioned, examples of anti-Croat sentiment should be too. Saying it wasn’t published is incorrect. And if you will remove it, then you might as well remove the beginning part about the Austrian government settlements and “resentment by Croats” as the book didn’t connect that to genocide carried put by Ustashe either. It’s not balanced or neutral to give only one side. OyMosby (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not worth keeping, it's undue. A number of editors do not understand Kingdom of Yugoslav and its policies. I have seen a number of desperate attempts to make everything to look like some sort of Serb imperial politics. It's BS. Alexander I and most Serbs, were pro-Yugoslav (durning the royal and communist rule both, and even during the Yugoslav wars). 6 January Dictatorship indeed had a goal to make a unified Yugoslav nation per "one nation, one country, one king". Btw, Alexander's short dictatorial rule was vanilla milkshake compared to Communist purges and their actions shortly after the WW2, or compared to other monarchs of his time. I must agree with WEBDuB here, information on Serb-Croat conflict should be kept out. A separate article would be great, or we can copy it somewhere else. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In an article of this complexity and importance, an in-depth background covering the history of Serb-Croat conflict (given the lack of quality articles on the history of the Serb-Croat conflict) is necessary. Serb hegemony and attendant policies during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is voluminously documented in academic sources regardless of your personal opinions, Sadko. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn’t even that much discussion in the article about the 6 January Dictatorship or the “anti-Croat” policies with it so not sure where all the focus or “BS” is. It’s per source. It played a roll in the Ustashe formation and their anti-Serb policies in WWII. How is it not relevant? Seems you two were against it last time it was discussed here but 4 other editors agreed with it. I being a fifth one now. @Peacemaker67: @Nolanfranyeri:, @Ktrimi991: and an IP, what say you as you were the rest of the participants in part of the discussion of this topic last time and deemed it suitable? I don’t see why it must be removed yet motives for crimes have been mentioned in numerous articles. As I said even the Chetniks. Seems to me over the past few days, there has been a move to skew the article making it less neutral and objective and more from a certain PoV. From removing information on what gave rise to the Ustashe other than simplifying “they were mad that Austrians gave free land” to hiding tensions increasing from the Serbian population as apposed to just the Croatian population in the 19th century to paint the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a simple happy Kingdom with no ethnic problems. OyMosby (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can agree that It played a role, but that role is overstated. Where is the information about Croats (and Ustashe) wanting an independent state? The idea was the present with or without "anti-Croatian politics"? Yeah, sure, linking "anti-Croatian politics" to, no more no less, than Kingdom of Yugoslavia is a real WP:NPOV. Furthermore, those moves and various actions where not against Croats in particular, but any citizens who were anti-Yugoslav. FYI, Yugoslav military/police/secret service killed a bunch of Serb communists or jailed them for good. The context is being manipulated here, and I am and will be against it, as it is doing injustice to Wiki readers. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: You missed the point. The fact that five members are in favor of something does not change the fact that it is WP:NPOV and anti-Serb prejudice. The source does not directly relate those events to the genocide!!!. That is violation the basic rules. The sentence is correct, but it is misplaced in context. I have never changed anything in the article about the Chetniks, or, for example, about the Bosnian Genocide. It would really be a shame for me to act that way. Elemental humanity. Again, give me an example of something similar in other articles about genocide. I'm waiting. Futhermore, no source links the Načertanije to the Ustasha, and especially to the genocide. Try to imagine that the Bosnian genocide article says five sentences about the Islamic Declaration. It is time to start working reasonably and following the rules.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

“ The context is being manipulated here, and I am and will be against it, as it is doing injustice to Wiki readers.“ Opposite. You are cheating the readers with actually manipulating the article info and giving a skewed article for the readers to interpret. So much wrong here. Firstly labeling us as “anti-Serb” is insulting and ridiculous argument. You seem fine with Tomasovich stating “Chetnik crimes to at least an extent were a response to Ustashe crimes” but you are against when he says “The 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies fueled right wing movements like the Ustahse and their anti Serb policies in WWII”. Also, the pre ware background section is listing examples of ethnic tensions in general not just what directly relates to genocide as you suddenly made a criteria. Also you claim to want to streamline the section yet keep inserting repeating sentences about Croatian nationalism, anti Serb tendencies and so on even though the section already has paragraphs talking about that. Not to mention you never include how Starcevic reveres his anti-Serb views later on. Also the intro sentence you keep forcing, do you have a source that in the 19th century Croatian politicians and intelligences were advocating for genocide against the Serbs? Or are you trying to make Croatian nationalism and desire for independence genocidal in nature or in the dna of the idea? Because that is how you make it seem writing that. You are absolutely not being NPOV in your edits. Instead of labeling us as anti-Serb, take a look at yourself and analyze your own actions. Also stop edit warring when discussion is occurring on the talk page.OyMosby (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Many sources in the article directly link Šarčević's ideology to genocide. It may have been misinterpreted and misused, but it is a factual situation. Please, stop with reverting sourced information. If comment about "unclean race" is not the inspiration for genocide, then I don't know what is. Perhaps the pro-Yugoslav dictatorship, which was directed against all ethnic groups? It is ridiculous that the article first mentions the dictatorship and Načertanije, instead Croatian nationalism and anti-Serb sentiment that existed before. We have to write chronologically. Again, no single source links the Načertanije to genocide, and that is half of the subsection, which is crucial for genocide. That disputed sentence is fine, but more for the Ustasha article. Certainly not for the lead section here. Also, no single source links the dictatorships with genocide. At best, it ok to stay in the background section. It is not a matter of personal opinion, the fact is that it is not relevant to this topic. Again and again, give me an example of something similar (examples of ethnic tensions, especially this long) in other articles about gnocide. I'm still waiting. We all know it wouldn't be decent. If one author writes about genocide and saome event in the same source, that may remain in the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should reach out to some users who have written in the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide articles. I believe they would have been more objective and unbiased. There is already plenty of information in the article, they just need to be better summed up and put in the correct context, in line with other genocide articles. To sum up, there were disputed parts:

1. The sentence in the lead about Anti-Serb sentiment or/and Croatian nationalism, possibly about Ante Starčević

2. The sentence in the lead about the 6 January Dictatorship (an explanation that it was pro-Yugoslav?) and anti-Croat policies

3. The chronological order of the previous two

4. The whole Načertanije part, possibly the Nikola Stojanović's quote

5. The World War II section about civil wars in Yugoslavia

6. Should we shorten the whole Background section and arrange it differently chronologically?

--WEBDuB (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is the expansive focus on Croatian nationalism while ignoring Serbian nationalism and tensions in the 19th century. The implication of the sentence taken out of context: “ Many scholars interpreted Croatian national identity as the product of an aggressive nationalism informed by the political interests of social elites.” which gives a faulty image to the readers that the Croat identity was invented in the 19th century even though the source talks about other views of scholars that the Croatian identity goes back to ancient times. The Croatian Dutch in the 7th century onwards and the Kingdom of Croatia and so on. And funny on the Chetnik page a quote from McDonald is given where he denies genocide occurred at the hands of both Ustashe and Chetniks yet don’t see that mentioned on this page or the Ustashe page. Yes clearly NPOV and doing service to the readers is very important I’m sure. The lead where it is being added about anti-Serb sentiment in the 19th century, there were issues arising on both sides during that time so it doesn’t seem neutral. And the sentence about the 6 January Dictatorship and anti Croat policies was in relation to what contributed to the rise of Ustashe and their brutal policies. This is from a cited source so adding extra information manipulates the source as @Peacemaker67: already mentioned. Also removing the sentence all together is not balanced at all. It is very much connected. Another user was right to remove the civil war section as it was going too deep into WWII which already as articles. Also you were selective in your Partisan section as it made it seem there wasn’t as much Croatian participation when in fact in 1943, there was as many Croats as Serbs in the Yugoslav partisans per capita population sizes. All these things just come across as unbalanced points of view pushed onto the readers. Another thing is the photos. Stepinac trial photo. He wasn’t a main figure in the conversions. He was more complicated than that. He was against it but failed to have the spine to stand up to the Ustashe. So putting him as a main photo is misleading. So is the memorial photo showing 700,000 victims when that was found not to be a remotely accurate statistic. A lot of sensitive information needs to be dealt with care in articles and subject like these. I think having neutral editors from other genocide pages is a good idea though not each page has similar history or circumstances. At this point this feels like going in circles. Major changes were made to the intro despite a lengthy talk sections having dealt with it months ago. Trying to make person ties between information an author states and connecting it to the genocide without the authro saying so themselves is not accurate or moral. Misrepresentation of the facts or spinning half truths or alternate info is a normal thing on Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias. It can stay there. On English Wikipedia there is no room for such behavior. OyMosby (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nations were "made" in the 19th century (in Europe). RS got is right. The article has been improved a lot. I suggest that you make a short summary/list of edits which you consider to be beneficial for the page, and we can discuss everything here. Do not ignore consensus, as you previously did, please. About Stepinac: he was put on trial for his actions, and considering his high position during the genocide - it is very notable on several levels. I shall not further comment on this despicable twisted logic which is presenting Serb nationalism and hegemony to be the root cause of Croat nationalism which, among other things, led to this terrible genocide which has/had numerous serious consequences on the region. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

list of requested changes are from the other User. Those changes were the issue. It seems a number of editors don’t see it as good changes such as removing sources content cited from Tomasovich. What consensus? You two? First, new content added, or “bold edits” as you usually put it, no consensus was asked or looked for by you or WEBDuB. Also, More editors want to keep the Tomasovich sentence than remove it. How about you search for consensus first before behaving as you own the page. Again, you have no consensus for your edits. Stepanic is not the simple individual you paint him as. There were far more complicit religious figures that could be named. You know that. Nowhere did I say that Serbian nationalism or anything else is the soul “root cause”. Stop deleting part of my responses and intentionally misrepresenting what I say. It is said that hegemony and anti-Croat policies contributed to the Ustashe. Funny you said Croatian nationalism instead of Ustashe. Almost conflating the two. As the article almost does. The despicable twisted logic isn’t coming from my end. That is plain to see to any neutral party. I won’t go further either as it seems to you Tomasovich is twisted in his logic as it was his own words not mine about what contributed to the Ustahse movement. But you are a better historian than him I guess. Seems you played yourself there bud. Whatever, the moment I or other editors objections to you two walks away, you will change the page to your own desire. At least we tried to keep it NPoV. I can sleep at night for that. OyMosby (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::Firstly, then Croatian nation in form of Kingdoms predates the 19th century. This isn’t nationalism speaking but any average historian can tell you that. They weren’t independent for a while but before entering the Kingdom of Hungary Union it existed. And as a state throughout. The sentence should stay about what made contributions to Ustashe synthesis. Why ignore it? Nowhere does it say it was the only motive. Nowhere is genocide justified or anything but horrible. It is one of the number of tragedies of varying degrees that permanently damages the region. As were the atrocities by the Chetniks which you claim was souly a reaction to the Ustashe despite historians saying otherwise. Many of which called genocide. Ignoring it and the lasting impact it too left is disrespectful to the victims. I’m sure it would enrage you if so person denied the genocide Ustahse carried out. And greatly added fuel to the fire of WWII and effected the future of the Balkans. But that doesn’t mean the full story of everything that went it to happenings shouldn’t be told. Trying to magnify parts of the article and minimize other parts is bad faith and POV. Let the ready form their own. History should be learned so it does repeat. Tudjman and Milosovic took the opposite approach, whitewashed history only to repeat it. Let’s not let the same mistake happen on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be a continued virtual version of the Yugoslav propaganda wars.74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo, MaloPoMalo. WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: “The issue is the expansive focus on Croatian nationalism while ignoring Serbian nationalism and tensions in the 19th century.” Because this is the article about crimes motivated by extreme Croatian nationalism. Should we write about Zionism, Armenian and Bosniak nationalism in articles about The Holocaust, Armenian and Bosnian genocide? As @Nolanfranyeri: said, it's unusual for a genocide page to mention the victim group's prior wrongdoings to the perpetrators. Again and again, give me an example of something similar (examples of ethnic tensions, especially this long) in other articles about gеnocide. Indeed, readers may misinterpret that these were some form of revenge attacks. We can't equate political moves in Yugoslavia with children's concentration camps and massacres. That disputed sentence is fine, but more for the Ustasha article. Certainly not for the lead section here. Furthermore, many sources in the article directly link Štarčević's ideology to genocide. Also, мany sources describe the development of anti-Serb sentiment in parallel with the rise of Croatian nationalism in the 19th century. We also have the “unclean race” statement from Štarčević. Can we add to the lead the sentence: “During the rise of Croatian nationalism (and aspiration for nation state) in the 19th century, part of nationalists also developed anti-Serb sentiments” or something like that? That would be a proper summation of what we have in the article, all supported by sources. What is more logical to write first in an article about genocide against Serbs than anti-Serb sentiment? @Peacemaker67: what do you think about the (too long) Načertanije part and Nikola Stojanović's quote? No single source links that to the genocide.

Also, if we want to write about tensions in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, we need to explain that one of the reasons was that Serbia suffered the biggest casualty rate in World War I as independent country on the (victorious) Allies side, and later merged with parts of Austria-Hungary. Many Croats fought in the Austro-Hungarian army and two of them served as military governor of occupied Serbia and Bosnia. They both endorsed Austria–Hungary’s denationalizing plans in Serb-populated lands and supported the idea of incorporating a tamed Serbia into Empire. For example, this source.

“It is shown that the institutional imprint left by the Austro-Hungarian army was largely restricted to a small group of high-ranking ex-Habsburg officers of Croat descent. Whilst their role was insignificant during the 1920s, their unfaltering opposition to Yugoslavia provided a blueprint for the Croatian radical right, the ‘Ustaše’, at the beginning of the 1930s.”

The story is much more complex, and the Background is already too long, but quite biased and one-sided. Anti-Serb sentiment existed before the creation of Yugoslavia, royal dictatorship etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

A long and tense debate is underway. The lead section needs to be shortened (the Lead too long template). Should it include parts from the Background section? Should it start with the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies or maybe with anti-Serbian sentiment and racial ideology among Croatian nationalists (Starčević, Pilar, Truhelka ) and infuence of former Austro-Hungarian officers?--WEBDuB (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should comment on every disputed part of the article, with the aim of reaching a consensus and solving the problem as soon as possible. I suggest formatting the article in a similar way to the Holocaust article. Even the authors of The Jerusalem Post describe that “the Jewish and Serbian people have a history together based on positive relations and suffering together” and “during the Holocaust, Jews and Serbs found themselves the targets of the Ustashe”. 1 2

1. The sentence in the lead about Anti-Serb sentiment or/and Croatian nationalism before the creation of Yugoslavia - I would start with the invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the NDH in the lead. But if we want a broader description of the background, it is important to explain this.

2. The sentence in the lead about the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies - It's Ok for the sentence to remain in the article, but is it appropriate to be in the lead section? Should we describe in the lead section of the Holocaust article the factors that influenced the formation of the Nazi Party? Especially, it's unusual for a genocide page to mention the victim group's prior wrongdoings to the perpetrators. Furthermore, readers may misinterpret that the dictatorship was ethnically motivated, but it was pro-Yugoslav and directed against all ethnic groups.

3. The chronological order of the previous two - It is important to emphasize that anti-Serb sentiment existed long before the creation of Yugoslavia among a group of Croatian nationalists. Many authors described the significant influence of Štarčević's ideology on the Ustashe, and there is his "unclean race" statement. Nevenko Bartulin, analyzing origins of race theory in the NDH, explained the role model to Croatian racial theorists were mostly anthropologists from Austria and Germany, that Štarčević made incoherent racist statements, and that the leading people who advocated the theory of the inferior Serbian race were Ivo Pilar and Ćiro Truhelka.1 2 We also have a source explaining the impact of former Austro-Hungarian officers' anti-Yugoslav sentiment on the Ustashe formation 1. Again, I would remove all of this from the lead and start with the invasion of Yugoslavia and NDH. The lead section is already too long. Certainly, the bottom line is that it is not right to start from the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies first.

4. The whole Načertanije part, possibly the Nikola Stojanović's quote - Should we put the Islamic Declaration in the Bosnian genocide article, as an example of ethnic tensions in general? Most importantly, no single source links that to Ustashe and the genocide.

5. The World War II section about civil wars in Yugoslavia - I think it would be useful to mention the civil war since it was one of the special features of Yugoslavia in World War II, which led to a horrific number of casualties and later to specific political relations.

6. Should we shorten the whole Background section and arrange it differently chronologically? - It definitely should be shorter.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the first part of your message has to do with the talk page conversation. No one denies Holocaust or genocide here. And no one here has any sympathy for the Ustashe and their disturbing genocide against Serb civilians. My issues with the article still stands. As do other editors on the talk page that disagree with your points. The intro seems valid in including the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies as it is per RS and explained how it contributed yo the Ustashe terrorist organization formation and actions. As for point 2, Belgrade nor the Yugoslav government were “victims” so not sure how that makes sense. Also as stated multiple times, you seem fine with on the Chetnik page and even in the WWII additions you were reading in saying that Chetnik atrocities against Croats and Muslims were to at least an extent a reaction to Ustashe atrocities against Serbs. (While leaving out that Chetnik atrocities in Eastern Bosnia occurred before Ustashe actions). This seems even heavier and justifying than what is in the lead. Yet there was no issue about it. Doesn’t seem like a consistent stance. As well as the way your additions to the article taylor an impression of Croatian nationalism being genocidal in nature. Example being the Greater Croatia Ideology of which Genocide was supposedly a pillar of, that the cited sources never backed up. It is fixed now at least. The Ustashe and their disgusting atrocities against the Serb people should be a focused topic. Also vouching for a balanced not pov article is not “downplaying” genocide or the Holocaust nor “nationalist pov”. A conversation is impossible if that sort of tar flinging is to commence. Criticizing the article is not at all criticism of the victims or validation or sympathy towards the Ustashe. This is not a blog or essay about social justice but a neutrally worded encyclopedia. Readers should form their own opinions or viewpoints. No sane person would walk away thinking “well it was all justified”. So discussion about Serbian nationalism is relevant in preserving a balanced article. Unless one thinks Croats = Ustashe as interchangeable groups. Unfortunately a viewpoint some hardline nationalists hold. The article seems to be mutating in that direction. Ironic as I’m sure thise same nationalists were upset when during the Yugoslav War news articles and media outlets made Serb synonymous with genocide or ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you may be able to be more empathetic in that viewpoint. Again my issues as well as the other editors who participated in the talk section above all who have issues with the direction this article is going still stand. Though I’m sure some will stoop to personal attacks to discredit my points or try to remove me again from the conversation. Pitiful direction to go. I agree that a neutral party would be helpful in better formatting the article. As people with personal connections with the subject are not going to be fully npov. That’s all I have to say. Cheers all. OyMosby (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop with baseless personal attacks. I didn't edit the Chetniks page etc. I don't support nationalism and fascism, even some editors have labeled me as “neoliberal” and “anti-Serb”. Let's go back to the topic. There are these six disputed points. Let's try to reasonably solve them. I said that we should start with the invasion of Yugoslavia and fascism (in a similar way to the Holocaust article), and not with Croatian nationalism, ethnic tension etc. But other editors insist on a long Background section. If you want in that way, we should put other factors that influenced the Ustasha, ​​which existed long before Yugoslavia, the dictatorship.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? What personal attacks did I make against you? I mentioned personal attacks you had written to me in response to me criticizing the article. Which is not baseless as I can easily link to were you accused me of downplaying genocide, the Holocaust and called me a nationalist making pov edits. And I spoke in general the issue of nationalism by editors on Wikipedia. And a hypocritical element to it. Didn’t specifically attack you in my comment. I didn’t call you anything personally. Again, I mentioned nothing personal about you aside from what you personally attacked me with. I only mention you when I specified that Serbians had been misrepresented at times or focused on at times in problematic ways on articles, media etc, that surely you can empathize with that being a sensitive issue and that we would want to avoid that here too. Please read it more carefully. I said we shouldn’t go down that route of this when one has issue with the article. I use the Chetnik page intro as a comparison point for discussion the motives of crimes. And that you did not complain about that when I brought it up in comparison or when you included that sentence in this article. I nowhere said you “support” them. I also am not saying you are intentionally trying to demonize Croats but that the article is becoming that inadvertently or not. This is ridiculous. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I specifically aboided an personal attacks in my comment above to you. I’m not going to talk anymore about this but the article content itself as this is off topic. OyMosby (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to comment here, but I will tomorrow. But let's not get obsessed about the length of a section, but focus on explaining what the reliable sources say the genesis of the genocide was. With any crime, it is very important to talk about the motive, regardless of how much it doesn't justify the crime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with WEBDuB that the background section is far too long. Take a look at The Holocaust in Slovakia. It doesn't discuss the development of Zionism in Slovakia, or Czech chauvinism against Slovaks, nor should it. Chetnik atrocities against Croats belong on a different wiki article. I see no reason to mention them in the lead of this article, which is on a different topic. Still, we should follow scholarly sources and not The Jerusalem Post or other newspapers. I have a pdf copy of Hitler–Beneš–Tito, a recent book which discusses this topic, including relevant background, and would be happy to share relevant sections. This book may also be useful. buidhe 11:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Thing is, WEBDuB recently added a lot of content to the lead compared to what was there a couple weeks ago. So strange they are complaining the lead is too long while trying to remove what was there a while ago and adding a lot of content. And that is my point, including Croatian chauvinism or nationalism seems highly focused compared to the main subject of the article. Let alone the intro. Also there is no mention of Chetniks in the lead nor do I think it should be added. I was using it as a comparison point from it’s article in discussion of motives of crimes by perpetrators. This is a similar approach to the intro on the Chetnik article which mentions the motivations for Chetnik atrocities carried out (also mentions Ustashe atrocities). Why not in this article intro as well? Also there is strong RS for the mention of the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies contributing to the Ustashe formation and their policies. Tomasevich is a valid historian and a valid source. The other fellow editor did not mention this. Also I don’t think they see that you agree that the chauvinism and nationalism background in the intro is not proper for the lead. So they seem to actually disagree with your stance. Which is exactly what I was getting at. I agree with you. Intro should be about the genocide it’s self. Like the Holocaust in Slovakia article. As you pointed out. However if the intro will discuss how the Ustashe popped up, Tomasovich’s mention of the dictatorship and anti-Croat policies contributing to them forming and and their policy formation is relevant to mention also in a sentence. Motives are relevant. However you cannot compare the Czech government as the Holocaust was not waged against Czechs. The Serbian dominant Yugoslav government and its actions contributed to the Ustashe’s anti-Serb sentiment as RS mentions. So it is not directly comprable to the Holocaust in Slovakia article per say. One cannot compare Zionism to the 6 January Dictatorship formation. Doesn’t really make sense. As there was no Jewish government imposing anti-Slovakian policies contributing to Nazi group formation. At least I do not see a source or book stating this. Basically what contributed to Slovakian Nazi organizations and Croatian Nazi organizations is quite different and not same context. I don’t see that Czech government actions contributed were as it appears Yugoslav government did. If Contributions to the Ustashe formation is not to be included in the intro then neither should extrapolation on Croatian chauvinism or nationalism. It should be strictly on the genocid itself and leave those details to the background section. Then again this should be done for all balkan articles including Chetniks article intro. OyMosby (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, thanks for joining us and suggesting great literature! It doesn't discuss the development of Zionism in Slovakia, or Czech chauvinism against Slovaks, nor should it. - Exactly! That is the essence of this whole debate. Rory Yeomans also described the significant influence of Pilar and Truhelka on the Ustashе. He mentioned the 6 January Dictatorship only once in the whole book, explaining that it was imposed with the aim of reconciling Serbian and Croatian nationalists. As I said, readers may misinterpret that the dictatorship was ethnically motivated.

Peacemaker67, focus on explaining what the reliable sources say the genesis of the genocide was - Of course, but do you think that dictatorship is the first stage in the genesis of genocide? Has nothing else influenced the Ustashе ideology before? What is with whole The whole Načertanije part? No single source links that to Ustashe and the genocide.

OyMosby, As do other editors on the talk page that disagree with your points. - One of the reasons is that they were your sockpuppets. And that is my point, including Croatian chauvinism or nationalism seems highly focused compared to the main subject of the article. - I can agree, but are the 6 January Dictatorship and anti-Croat policies by Yugoslav governemt the main subject of the article? If we want a broader description of the background, we should write about anti-Serbian sentiment and racial ideology among Croatian nationalist (Starčević, Pilar, Truhelka...), anti-Yugoslav sentimet of former Austro-Hungarian officers etc, all in chronological order as it appeared throughout history. I would remove all of that from the lead write a more focused the Backgroubd.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are straw manning. Multiple editors not my one IP agreed. So saying “they were your puppets” is a lie. None of these other editors are my accounts. And as I was not logged into my account and edited as my IP by accident on the talk page along with my account one time as you can see in the same conversation. I didn’t want my IP exposed so I pretended it was not affiliated to me. Not the right way to fix the situation but my mistake. And exploited to try to get me blocked. As I was reported by a person also in edit conflict with me in the article. My intention was not to build false support. Not necessary given all the other editors who were on the same side of agreement as me, who you ignore deflecting to my IP. My other accounts are not used here and are meant to be used on separate articles but became sloppy forgetting to be logged into the correct one. Even forgetting I had already edited on another talk page as my other account losing track of what I was logged in as. Again my mistake but not intentionally try to be devious or break the rules or sockpuppet. Sockpuppeting not meant to be the goal. I will be sticking with one account so it doesn’t happen again. But trying to falsely discredit and twist things is not right either. Funny you are personally attacking me while asking personal attacks not to happen.

Reason for the 6 January Dictatorship and policies was in talking about what contributed directly to the terrorist organization’s formation and policies as directed sourced from RS. Again it does not justify their actions. This is a similar approach to the intro on the Chetnik article. It is even specifically mentioned how disproportionate the actions were. So as to make it clear to readers.OyMosby (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with fellow editors Buidhe and WEBDuB on this one. There is no space for the "argument" (logical mistake) Argumentum ad populum. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've corrected that.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is way too long. As far as I can tell, its purpose is for concise feedback on a specific question. It's not the place for editors go on tangents either. Inter-war policies by Yugoslavia helped in the rise of Croatian extremists, this is supported by Tomasevich who is a RS. Its prominence in the article is debatable but it should definitely be included. As far as a section on the civil war in Yugoslavia during WWII, no. The first massacre of Serbs in the NDH occurred on 28 April 1941. Partisan and Chetnik units were formed in June. There are plenty of articles for information on the Partisans, Chetniks and general WWII history in Yugoslavia that you can link to. The background section is indeed a little long so I'd avoid dumping every instance of Serb-Croat tensions in there and instead focus on events that have had a demonstrable impact on Serb-Croat relations, particularly those that influenced ideologies and affected national consciousness. For example, Vuk Karadžić's views and Ante Starčević's writing on Serbs. Both of them were major figures. Conversely, Nikola Stojanović I'm not so sure. Naturally, this should all be chronological. That said, I'd rather focus on improving the parts about the genocide itself. --Griboski (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vuk Karadžić considered that all south Slavs that speak the Shtokavian dialect were Serbs, while Pilar, Truhelka and Starčević introduced racial superiority/inferiority theory. Many RS claim that that influeced Ustasha ideology, as a basic inspiration for anti-Serb sentiment and racial policy. This is especially crucial for articles on the crimes of fascist regimes. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree. Those types of writings and ideas are in a different class. They should be emphasized in the background with RS. As for the lead, mentioning that the Ustashe incorporated some racial superiority ideals should suffice. Anti-Croatian policies by the Yugoslav government could be mentioned afterwards. --Griboski (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect to Buidhe and her quality work on the Holocaust in Slovakia article, that is just wrong-headed. Why would you include information about the development of Zionism in Slovakia, or Czech chauvinism against Slovaks in that article? They aren't among the Slovak motivations for the Holocaust in Slovakia. What is most likely among the motives/contributing factors for it would be the history and development of anti-Semitism in Czechoslovakia in the previous decades, and who promoted it and for what reasons, whether there had been any progroms etc. Likewise, Serb-Croat relations before and after the creation of Yugoslavia were a contributing factor in the development of the Ustasha ideology, and an aspect of the motives of the Ustashas in carrying out their genocidal policies. To not include the history of Serb-Croat relations, including the Serb-chauvinist Vidovdan Constitution and 6 January dictatorship, Serb-controlled centralised administration and inter-war Serb hegemony across the country would be the same as not including the background about traditional religious antisemitism, Slovak ethno-nationalism and the role of the HSĽS in the Holocaust in Slovakia article. Clearly the (certainly twisted and exaggerated) motives of the Ustashas for their genocidal policies are a critical part of the Background to the genocide itself, and must be included as part of the Background. BTW, this RfC is completely malformed, and should be dropped as a RfC and just be a discussion thread. There will be no clear or useful outcome from such a convoluted, POV and TLDR RfC. Please read WP:RFC before posting another one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

All genocides are hate-motivated crimes, but only genocide against Serbs is an “overreaction”? Genocide implies the intention to destroy, not the intention to revenge. the Serb-chauvinist Vidovdan Constitution and 6 January dictatorship, Serb-controlled centralised administration and inter-war Serb hegemony - This seems like a serious POV and deviation from the topic. The royal dictatorship and inter-war Yugoslav policies helped in the rise of Croatian extremists, but that is not so much a key moment for genocide as insisted in this article. That is WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. The 6 January Dictatorship wasn't ethnically motivated, but aimed to suppress ethnic tensions and to establish the Yugoslav ideology and single Yugoslav nation. Serbian nationalists criticize King Alexander, also. The influence of the dictatorship on the formation of the Ustashe should be described in the article about them, but that had a far greater impact on their anti-Yugoslav moves, and not in the anti-Serb ones. Many authors describe these anti-Yugoslav and separatist motives for the formation and the possible relation with the 6 January Dictatorship, but that is not the main topic here. Most importantly, many scholars described the significant influence of an anti-Serb sentiment (Starčević, Eugen, Kvaternik...) and racial superiority/inferiority theory (Pilar, Truhelka, Starčević...) among group of Croatian nationalists, which existed many before the creation of Yugoslavia, on the Ustashe and their genocidal policies. Furthermore, John Paul Newman is someone who has mostly researched inter-war Serb-Croat relations. He explained the importance of the impact of former Austro-Hungarian officers on the Ustashe formation. Ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia existed because ethnic groups fought on different sides during the First World War I. Serbia suffered the biggest casualty rate in the whole world. Many Croats fought in the Austro-Hungarian army and two of them served as military governor of occupied Serbia and Bosnia. They both endorsed Austria–Hungary’s denationalizing plans in Serb-populated lands and supported the idea of incorporating a tamed Serbia into Empire. We should also explain the well-known influence of Mussolini on Pavelić during the 1920s-30s exile. Why ignore so many relevant sources and such important information? --WEBDuB (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove victim blaming POV Thank you WEBDuB for detailed and good explanation that the current text of article is victim blaming POV. I agree with you. The justifications of genocide are given undue weight both in lede and background sections, and violate WP:COMMONSENSE, NPOV and plenty of other policies. The victim blaming justifications of genocide do not deserve more than one sentence in the lede and one paragraph with maximum four sentences in the text of the article. They should be clearly presented as justifications. The real motives deserve one paragraph in the lede and remaning part of the background section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think that the lead should not contain parts from the Background section, as it is obviously controversial and we cannot reach a consensus on the content. I would start with the invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the NDH. The current version is a real WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, the Background section should be shorter, but to cover all the factors that influenced the formation of the Ustashe and their ideology in chronological order as it appeared throughout history:

1. The anti-Serb sentiment, racial superiority/inferiority theory and Greater Croatia ideology introduced the most extreme groups Croatian nationalists

2. Ethnic tensions during World War I and the aftermath

3. Anti-Yugoslav motives because of the influence of former Austro-Hungarian officers, separatist aspirations and a response to the 6 January Dictatorship

4. Serb-centralized Yugoslav government and anti-Croat policies

5. Mussolini's influence on Pavelić's fascism --WEBDuB (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Exempt from autonomy ?

In "Pre-War Period", this sentence seems very questionable:"As Habsburg frontier militiamen, they were exempt from communal and church autonomy as well as feudal obligations while Croats were not".

They might well have been exempt from feudal obligations, but exempt from communal and church independence, ie not obliged to have communal and church independence? There does not appear to be an obvious fix, but the sentence seems unlikely. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead

The lead section needs to be shortened (the Lead too long template). My suggestion is to remove the pre-World War II events. Do you agree? They are usually not directly related to genocide and occupy a large part of the section, as well as obviously, cause a lot of dispute and controversy among editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I hope this Rfc will be more practical and better now. The current version is really victim-blaming POV. Most importantly, it is WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. There are many factors that have influenced the genesis of genocide that have not been properly and proportionately explained according to the sources. We can describe all this in the Historical background section, but I think it is best for the lead to start with the invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the NDH. @Amanuensis Balkanicus:@OyMosby:@Peacemaker67:@Buidhe:@Sadko:@Griboski:@Antidiskriminator:@Вукан Ц:@Santasa99:@Soundwaweserb:@Ktrimi991:@MareBG:@Calthinus:@Nolanfranyeri:@Pincrete:--WEBDuB (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment in my opinion the lead would be improved by some pruning of the prewar content, however per MOS:LEAD, it should reflect the body, so it would be even better to prune the existing background sections first. A lot of the background section is cited to sources that aren't about the genocide of Serbs, making it a bit coatracky. It would be worth looking at what sources that directly focus on the genocide consider appropriate and helpful background. buidhe 18:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we should only include sources that are directly related to the genocide. I've been advocating that since the beginning.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this because it is pointless and contrary to policy. The lead should summarise the article. Improve on the article, THEN adjust the lead to reflect its contents. BTW, the pre-WWII events are directly related to the motives of the Ustashas, so they need to be in both the article and summarised in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It doesn't do our readers justice to imagine a historical vacuum. E.g. Croatia–Serbia genocide case and Croatian War of Independence rightly mention this genocide, since it is part of the rhetoric used by the Milošević regime to create a basis for the 1990s wars. It then follows that what's in the body should be also summarised in the lead. Daß Wölf 06:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I noticed that in all articles on the topics of genocide there are continuous attempts to give undue weight to justifications of genocide both in the background sections and consequently in the lede, and to present justifications as real arguments and motives. That is a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE, NPOV and plenty of other policies. Taking in consideration this tendency to turn the text of this (and not only this) article into victim-blaming POV, I support the intention of WEBDuB to reach consensus about the structure of this article and related articles but I oppose to the proposal to remove the pre-World War II events because "no man no problem" is almost always the wrong approach. It maybe good idea to present this RfC to the attention of wider community and reach consensus about the structure of all articles with similar topics?
• I propose always to first reach consensus on what are real motives and what are justifications. After reaching consensus about these basic things, I proposed the following procedure and structure of this and articles on similar topics:
  • The justifications of genocide do not deserve more than one paragraph with maximum of four sentences in the background section of the text of the article and one sentence in the lede, allways clearly presented as justifications.
  • The real motives deserve the remaining part of the background section and one paragraph in the lede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No-one is going to sign up to blanket provisions like this, each article needs to be developed based on the necessary content, not some arbitrary restrictions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Removing most (not all) events prior to the genocide would be an improvement. Keeping it short(er) and on-topic would bring the article and its content closer to readers who do not know a lot about these and related events. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is obviously part of the background to the topic. You cannot understand the genocide without understanding the background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Genocides are not understandable. Short(er) and on-topic text would be enough to present background. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense. If we do not understand genocides, they will be repeated. The material there is on-topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not want to make assumptions about other editors' actions but there is sth rather strange here: On the lede, WEBDuB several times tried to remove the sentence that says that the Ustasha nationalism was fueled by anti-Croatian policies of Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. After that WEBDuB added two background sentences before the said sentence, as if trying to make it "less visible". Why is WEBDuB suggesting to remove the background content from the lede while most of it was recently added there by them? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I really wouldn't comment on such malicious statements and personal attacks. I do my best to solve the problem, and in return I become targeted. Anyone who wants to improve the article can join the discussion about the content.--WEBDuB (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You know very well that you are not being targeted with "malicious" statements or personal attacks, WEBDuB. After trying to remove well-sourced content with misleading edit summaries and add unsourced conclusions, you are making a RfC discussion with a proposal to remove content most of which was recently added by you. Do not give too much time and energy to that sentence on anti-Croatian policies: you can not reach consensus to remove it and is is after all a single sentence. Best focus on other issues of the article since you want it improved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991 yes, you detected it well. On first reading and I assumed that this citation "later anti-Croat policies of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government in the 1920's and 1930's fueled the rise of nationalist and far-right movements." bothers someone. In this case it is probably a problem for editor @WEBDuB but what I can say is that this is wikipedia after all and we cannot all be satisfied including me. We are here to work together and if something bothers someone, let it be said directly. That would be fairest and in accordance with good faith. We can also discuss about that citation. Mikola22 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Many editors are bothered by a sentence, more precisely the context in which it is placed. It is clear to everyone what the goal is here ... Especially, I'm sure that many readers are deeply affected by the content of this article, which relativizes, justifies and glorifies the most massive and brutal genocide in the Balkans. I was wrong in assuming that we would all unanimously condemn fascism, racism and genocidal acts. Really sad. It has always been difficult to fight and loudly condemn such ideologies. Maybe you're right if you think I'm overreacting. Maybe it's just my upbringing and education, it’s not right to have prejudices and every hatred and crime should be strongly condemned. Most importantly, this version violates WP:NPOV. WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL policies. I hope that no one was offended by me, unfortunately I cannot say the opposite. Let everyone continue to work as they think is the best and morally correct. Death to fascism, freedom to the people! I wish everyone all the best. --WEBDuB (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB, please don't feel discouraged. I've observed your edits and I think you've done a great job expanding the article. I don't think any of the (serious) editors are saying that the sentences in question are the most important thing or that they are the only thing worth bringing attention to, only that they should be included in the lead. As it's been suggested, I think that the background section needs to be improved first to keep the relevant information and afterwards, the lead can be edited to reflect it. You've said it before that Croatian nationalism and Anti-Serb sentiment predates the interwar years. If we are to keep things chronological, then it follows that those would be mentioned ahead of the Yugoslav dictatorship. --Griboski (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB there is no offense, but then you should said this at the beginning. I guess you know where you are? I had 20 sources which talk about Nikola Tesla being Croat-American but it did not pass. What should I do? You should have opened a discussion about it and that’s it. You have the right as an editor on wikipedia to discuss everything. And whether your proposal will pass will be seen. My opinion is that this citation is part of history after all and I support that this information be in the introductory part. In any case and from me "Death to fascism, freedom to the people." Mikola22 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with @Peacemaker67 and @Daß Wölf. Everything has been said. Mikola22 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The lengthy paragraph as it stands is blatantly WP:UNDUE. As per WP:MOSLEAD, the summary of the genocide's context shouldn't require more than two or three sentences. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOSLEAD does it say that "the summary of the [subject] context shouldn't require more than two or three sentences"? Don't make claims about policies that are blatantly untrue. How much context is needed obviously varies from article to article. This one needs a fair amount of context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point. This should be brought to the attention of wider community and reach consensus about the structure of all articles with similar topics as some kind of WP:GENOCIDESMOSLEAD subsection of WP:MOSLEAD saying something like the summary of the [subject] context shouldn't require more than two or three sentences.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Antid, stop making passive-aggressive comments. You have been told about this by others. Would you argue the same about the motivations of the Chetniks for the war crimes they committed during WWII? BTW, that sort of MOS amendment will never fly because no-one will agree to something so prescriptive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing aggressive in opposition to present genocide as something understandable. You have been told by others that no act of mass terror is understandable (diff). Your statement (If we do not understand genocides, they will be repeated) is absolutely incorrect. If genocides will be repeated, that can happen exactly if they are presented as understandable. I believe that every neutral editor would agree about it. I feel somewhat ashamed to have to repeat such obvious thing, so this will be my last comment in this discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Should have worded that better. WP:MOSLEAD says the lead should be "a concise overview of the article's topic". Two to three sentences is my two cents about how long it should be in this article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I completely disagree with this. When the body of this article has been properly rewritten, then we can decide how much space the background/context should have in the lead. I truly wish people would stop fighting over the leads of articles when an article needs a lot of work to bring it up to an acceptable standard and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Charny

"The genocide scholar Israel Charny described the Independent State of Croatia as the third most lethal regime in history, killing an average of 2.51% of its citizens per year." is not supported by the source. He does not make the statement "the Independent State of Croatia [w]as the third most lethal regime in history", what he does is list the fifteen most lethal regimes in the twentieth century, and the NDH comes third. The percentage is accurately reflected though. To be included, this needs to read ""The genocide scholar Israel Charny lists the Independent State of Croatia as the third most lethal regime in the twentieth century, killing an average of 2.51% of its citizens per year." However, I have a massive problem with his figure. He lists domestic democide of 655,000 in the NDH, this must include some form of demographic calculation about loss of births etc, because academic consensus for the numbers of Serbs killed in the NDH by all causes is between 307,000 and 334,000, to which you add 30,000 Jews and 25,000 to 41,000 Roma.(Hoare 2006 pp. 20–25) That adds up to a maximum of 405,000, less than two-thirds of the number used by Charny. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you're absolutely right. Thanks. Maybe Charney also included murders on the battlefield. Certainly, the section cites various sources on the number of victims. We do not claim that any of them is 100% accurate. However, it is a reliable and significant source--WEBDuB (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it fine to use as a source in general of course, but Hoare includes battlefield deaths in his 405,000, so we need more information about how Charny came up with the domestic democide figure of 655,000 (which is highly controversial given the figure in Hoare, which reflects various research on the topic), as that methodology information needs to be included (even if it is as a note). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a wider issue with citing controversially high numbers of deaths, on this and other articles about Serb losses to the Ustashe. Yes, the academic consensus is that between 307,000 and 334,000 Serbs died of all causes during WWII in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Syrmia is missing here, though), which includes "battlefield deaths and civilian victims of the Chetniks, Partisans, Germans, Italians, and others" (per Hoare 2006, p. 25).

Yet the lead here says: "The regime systematically murdered approximately 200,000 to 500,000 Serbs, with most authors agreeing on a range of around 300,000 to 350,000 fatalities." How is that possible? What is the source that most authors agree on 300-350,000? It seems like a few sources which give as high of a number as possible were cherry picked, making sure not to go to the extremes of 700,000+ from the Yugoslav times.

Elsewhere on Wikipedia, casualty estimates for other events or ethnic groups are in line with the academic research, although they can also cite some higher number from a more or less related source to the topic. The Nedić article for example cites exactly the estimates of Žerjavić and Kočović for Serbia. Tezwoo (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Rory Yeomans, Israel Charny, Aristotle Kallis, Myrna Kostash, Smilja Avramov and many other scholars, as well as Yad Vashem claim there were up to 500,000 fatalities. I really think they are significant enough to be mentioned as a reliable source of information. We have had a consensus on the range for a long time.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that this article is in a terrible state and has been for a long time. It needs a complete rewrite. If you think something in the lead should be changed to reflect the academic consensus, then remove it. We still have the ridiculous 700,000 figure for Jasenovac in several places on WP, just because a group in Republica Srpska still claim it. It isn't encyclopaedic, it just someone disrupting WP trying to push a fringe view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoare is an authority but he is not the authority on the number of Serbs killed by the Ustashe. 300,000-350,000 reflects the figure most widely given. 200,000 is the lowest end and 500,000 is the high end estimate, cited by people like Yeomans, who has written significant works on the NDH and Ustashe. They are not using Yugoslav-era statistics but their own research. Thus, I don't see a problem with the way the stats are summarized and presented in the article. Genocides in history typically don't merely take into account the civilian death toll but also combatants and deaths indirectly caused by the actions of the regime. Any changes to this would need a consensus. --Griboski (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not just Hoare. He uses the statistics generated by the research of the demographer Vladimir Žerjavić and statistician Bogoljub Kočović, which Jozo Tomasevich also concluded were free of bias and could be accepted as reliable. Ramet also uses their figures, as does Pavlowitch. Yad Vashem had serious errors on its website for years, and having a Holocaust focus, cannot be held up as equal on this subject to Yugoslav specialists like Hoare, Ramet and Tomasevich. What exactly do Yeomans, Charny, Kallis, Kostash and Avramov say? Can you provide quotes where they claim the 500K figure? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeomans says "estimates of the number of Serbs killed by the regime vary.. at least 200,000 and possibly as many as 500,000 died at the hands of Ustasha death squads"1

Charny gives the figure of 500,000 for all victims. He later says that "at least 400,000 Serbs were killed by the Ustasha"2

There are others such as genocide scholar Paul R. Bartrop who give the figure of 500,000.3 Kallis 4 Paul Hockenos 5 Donald L Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia 6

Kostash and Avramov do appear to give that same number, though the books in question are only allowed as a snippet view and I doubt their reliability for this particular topic.

--Griboski (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bartrop, on the same page, says: "Within weeks of the war's end, the Partisans had executed without trial up to a quarter of a million people who had sided with the Germans, most of them Croats". Meaning, in the aftermath of the Bleiburg repatriations, which is also an exagarated number since the academic consensus for Bleiburg is tens of thousands or 70-80,000 deaths, not up to 250,000. The total fatalities of Croats in WW2 and its aftermath are around 200,000. Tezwoo (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Numbers mentioned in Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity, Culture, and History

The estimates of 800,000 to one million Serbs killed in the NDH by Simić in this anthropologically-derived book lists four sources (Balen, Martin, Paris and Pridonoff). These are old (and in at least two cases, highly POV) sources, having been published from 1946 to 1961. They are clearly completely out of date. These figures are clearly being used on p. 105 as examples of high estimates, not the author's view that they are accurate or reflect current academic consensus. We know from more recent research that these numbers are ridiculous, and they should only be included in this article in the context of explaining the development of the numbers over time. They would be better off being cited to their original sources as well. They certainly cannot be used to state that these are the consensus numbers in Wikipedia's voice. Second issue is p. 89 of Despalatović, who has misrepresented Žerjavić's work. Žerjavić does not say that number of Serbs killed in the NDH is "about 100,000", he says the Serb civilian casualties in the NDH were 197,000, with 125,000 Serbs killed as combatants, for a total of 322,000 (obviously only the civilians are relevant to this article). I have no idea how or why Despalatović has made this error, but anyone can read Žerjavić's book and see that she has misrepresented him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Despalatovic (p. 89) says Serb deaths "as NDH victims" were around 100,000, not total Serb deaths in the NDH of all causes. c. 100,000 civilian deaths, caused by the Ustashe, is possible based on Žerjavić's research, certainly more probable than 500,000 which is not corroborated by any research. Žerjavić said that from that number (197,000), 45,000 were killed by German forces, 15,000 by Italian forces, and 34,000 "in battles between Ustashas, Chetniks and Partisans". Tezwoo (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This kind of compartmentalization of the number of Serb victims in the NDH to me almost amounts to a minimization or trivialization of the genocide. Kočović, the other significant researcher often cited for Yugoslav WWII casualties wrote that "the task of categorizing the victims would be impossible". Other researchers have questioned the accuracy of Žerjavić's methodology. He also erred badly on his casualties on the Bosnian War, listing a hundred thousand more victims and nearly five times higher (!) the number of Croat victims than what was found by the ICTY and Bosnian government. I know that the general belief back then was that around 200,000 people had died but that was still a major gaffe for a statistician. I'm not suggesting his research be dismissed whatsoever but I'd be careful about taking a single individual's statistics as gospel. I also disagree that only civilian victims are relevant for this article, unless specified in a particular figure. As I mentioned above, victim counts for genocides don't merely take into account civilian deaths or only deaths as a result of massacres. Thus, deaths due to typhoid or as a result of battles are also attributable as they wouldn't have happened had it not been for Ustasha actions and policies.

Despalatović is clearly deviating from the consensus when she cites the figure of 100,000, unsupported by any major historian of the Balkans. In the case of Simić, he is citing non-experts who gave their figures not long after the war when casualties by the Yugoslav government were exaggerated and have since been debunked by all serious historians. I don't see any encyclopedic value in listing either of these individuals' figures unless to demonstrate that they are inaccurate. But then again, I don't see why they should be singled out anyway. --Griboski (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus for the number of casualties is that the studies by Žerjavić and Kočović are the most accurate ones. There's not much difference between Žerjavić and Kočović regarding the total Serb losses in the NDH, if one also takes into account that Žerjavić counted separately those that died abroad. Kočović did not differentiate between combatants and civilians, but the number of Partisan fatalities is probably the most accurate one in Žerjavić's research due to the huge volume of monographs and victims lists for the Partisans produced during Yugoslavia, which he used. And Kočović also said that many Serbs in the NDH were killed by the German forces, Italian forces, in battles between the Chetniks and Partisans... and not just by the Ustashe. Anyway, are there any sources that Partisans (or Chetniks) killed in battles were victims of genocide too? Would that even change the overall number significantly? I don't see how the Ustashe militia/HOS could have killed more Partisans in direct battles than the German and Italian forces.

The casualties in the Bosnian War is a different issue, the first post-war census was only in 2013, and the research on the number of victims by the ICTY and the IDC started long after Žerjavić's death. Tezwoo (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily referring to fighters only (though there were also POW executions) but given that there was military cooperation between the NDH and German forces, there were many instances of entire villagers who were slaughtered under the pretense that they were harboring Partisans or that they were "Chetniks", with the assistance or direct involvement of Germans. Yet it seems we are supposed to exclude these casualties resulting from "military operations" or "battles" and who were not solely killed by the Ustashe from the genocide which doesn't seem right. I'm just saying I would rather take the figures given by scholars rather than use Žerjavić's categorizations to diminish the death toll, which could be tricky and involve original research. --Griboski (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article's name was changed a few months ago from covering Persecution of Serbs in the NDH to genocide in the NDH (a few more months or a year before that the name was Persecution during World War II, covering the entire Yugoslavia). So I would think that the number of fatalities should concern the genocide part, not military deaths which were in a significant number caused by other Axis troops.

However, the issue here is not that some scholars counted military deaths and others didn't. As Adam Jones and Nicholas A. Robins put it, "the cited range of total deaths is rather wide, from 100,000 to 750.000".[3] This large discrepancy in sources cannot be due to the inclusion of military fatalities. As the studies of Žerjavić and Kočović are widely regarded as reliable, at least for the total deaths, we can easily see which figures differ greatly from their totals. Tezwoo (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My point about Despalatović is that she is just wrong, she is misquoting Žerjavić, and a primary school kid could read Žerjavić (the source she claims the figure comes from) and see she has made an error. To put it another way, we can completely ignore her 100,000 figure and discount it, as she footnotes it to Žerjavić, but the 100,000 figure just doesn't appear on that page of Žerjavić's book. Žerjavić says 197,000 civilian dead in the NDH. It is pretty clear that the genocide covered by the scope of this article relates to civilians, not combatants. Plenty of scholars accept and endorse Žerjavić's and Kočović's calculations, and they represent the academic consensus. The figures we should be using are those, not the fantasy figures mentioned by various POV-warriors and generalist publications that have done no research of their own on this specific subject, but are merely regurgitating the claims of others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should use Žerjavić and Kočović rather than some random figures found in literature, which are not a result of any research. On this article and on others where a death toll is included. Tezwoo (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Many relevant historians and genocide scholars (Yeomans, Charny, Kallis, Kostash, Avramov, Bartrop, Hockenos, Niewyk, Nicosia...) and Yad Vashem, which has its own research center, claim that the number of victims of genocide can be up to 500,000. I think it is wrong to ignore that and it is important to mention number as part of the range in the lede and the infobox, as well as to explаin in the specific section. All the articles on mass murders were formed in this way. Different scholars cite different numbers, according to their research. Some of them may have included those killed in combat and who died of infectious diseases. So what? Many of that combats were part of the resistance to genocidal campaigns, while typhoid and other diseases probably would not exist without the terror of the state. Also, the Italians and the Germans had their role in the NDH. Ignoring facts from relevant sources is not a good practice.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that Serbs killed while fighting for the Partisans and Chetniks should be included in the numbers here? These are not "facts" being ignored, they just aren't relevant to the scope of this article. It is obvious that the higher numbers that obviously include Serb combatants shouldn't be included in this article about the Ustasha genocide, as their deaths are attributable to the civil war and resistance to the occupiers and their helpers, not directly to the genocidal policies of the Ustashas. This article should be about those directly killed by the Ustashas or as a direct result of their genocidal policies, not inflated with deaths that had little if anything to do with the Ustashas, and far more to do with the occupation policies of the Axis and the civil war between the various factions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that. The authors explicitly stated that up to 500,000 killed as a result of genocidal policies. I was trying to explain what they may have considered, but we should not go into that. A large number of them suggested that number (without more detailed explanations) and we should not ignore these facts.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Out of the eight authors listed in the infobox and "toll of victims" section, we have six of them who either say 300,000 or 350,000 Serbs died as a result of the genocide, so I'm not sure why a "disputed" tag was added after the line "most authors agreeing on a range of around 300,000 to 350,000 fatalities". This includes several prominent Balkan historians. It's wrong to take one person's research (Žerjavić) and imperfect dissection to override all the other scholars. --Griboski (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No schoolar cited there other than Žerjavić and Kočović made any research on the number of victims during WW2 in Yugoslavia, so we can't equate Žerjavić with someones guesstimates or wrong interpretations of his numbers. Ramet in her later works cited Žerjavić. As for Pawlowitch, on page 34 I only see him citing Kočović's total number of deaths, not that the Ustaše killed 300 or 350,000 Serbs. There are also many sources that cite figures lower than 300,000 [4] [5] [6] [7]. So I don't see how can there be a conclusion that "most authors" agree on 300-350,000.

And just to be clear on Žerjavić as he is often wrongly cited, this is what he wrote regarding "victims of fascist terror" among Serbs in the NDH [8] [9]:

Serb "victims of fascist terror", according to Žerjavić

Deaths caused by/location
Jasenovac concentration camp	50,000
German forces	45,000
in battles between Ustaše, Chetniks and Partisans	34,000
Prisons, pits and other camps	28,000
Died of typhoid	25,000
Sajmište concentration camp	20,000
Italian forces	15,000
Total	217,000

So after removing deaths caused by the Italians, Germans, and the Sajmište camp, we are left with 137,000 and that's with typhoid deaths included. Tezwoo (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Most authors cited on the page list those numbers. Now, if we go "they can't be right because look at Žerjavić's calculations" that's engaging in WP:OR and so it is too if we look at Žerjavić's categorizations and pluck out our own tally from it that seems to fit the article. There's also other problems with doing that. There was a high degree of co-operation between the Germans and Ustashe, and some Ustashe were under German control. Sajmište was under Ustashe control for a few months. There were massacres of Serb civilians in battles between the warring factions. That's why we should stick to just reporting what secondary sources say. Kočović, the other researcher you mentioned gives a maximum of 410,000 Serb deaths in the NDH so there's that too.

200,000 is a bare minimum I think. I propose scrapping "most authors agreeing on a range of around.." and simply write that the regime systematically murdered approximately 200,000 to 350,000 Serbs. I agree that 500,000 seems high when we look at the fact that the data shows that basically that many Serbs were killed in all of Yugoslavia during WWII. My only reservation is that Rory Yeomans who has researched the NDH extensively and has written two recent books on the Ustashe says that it's possible, so I would not exclude that figure entirely. --Griboski (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparing and summarizing conflicting sources is WP:NOTOR. Anyway, I can agree with your proposal, but in addition to that I also propose the inclusion of Nazi Germany under perpetrators. You are right regarding the relations between the Ustaše and the Nazis, and Žerjavić too summed all their crimes under "victims of fascist terror". Tomasevich 2001, p. 747, regarding the "widespread practice of genocide", says:

"The Italians up to September 1943 and the Germans throughout the war assisted in this genocide, working partly independently and partly through their puppet regimes." Tezwoo (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Such conclusions are indeed an example of OR. Many reliable sources claim that the number of victims of genocide can be up to 500,000. Also, there are those who claim that the number of victims is less than 300,000. We cannot talk about consensus, when we have more than ten prominent historians and genocide scholars claiming otherwise. For instance, Rory Yeomans's work is focused on the NDH. Even Ramet and Hoare, who are far from pro-Serb, claim the death toll could be above 300,000. It is wrong to ignore these facts. We should not do that, according to Wikipedia's policies. No one disputes Žerjavić's calculations, but maybe some scholars may used other sources. we can't equate Žerjavić with someones guesstimates or wrong interpretations of his numbers - For example, a review paper is a higher level of evidence than individual survey and calculations. Furthermore, please stop making changes to the number of victims in the infobox until we reach an agreement on the talk page. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is OR if we decipher the genocide total on our own based on Žerjavić's numbers and include it. I'm not sure on Nazi Germany, perhaps it could be mentioned that they assisted or were complicit in the genocide. As a side note on Dulić's 2005 book, I just assumed once a source isn't in use, there's no point in it being listed. Anyway, Dulić doesn't think the Ustashe committed genocide against Serbs but "ethnocide", clearly putting him in WP:FRINGE territory on this issue.1 Therefore I don't think that this non-peer reviewed book should be used as an authority regarding this topic if there are better sources to use. --Griboski (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

500,000 is above the total Serb death toll for entire Yugoslavia for both combatants and civilians, by both Žerjavić and Kočović, and that figure is cited by a very small number of authors. There are also many sources that claim that the Partisans killed up to 500,000 people after the war, or that 500,000 died at the hands of the Chetniks during the war, or that 700,000 people died in Jasenovac. 500,000 is too fringe of a figure to be included in the lead. Therefore, I agree on 200-350,000 with Nazi Germany mentioned as being complicit, not on 200-500,000.

Regarding Dulić, he didn't make a definite conclusion on the characterization of Ustaše crimes. He wrote (and a similar thing for the Chetniks): "On the one hand, one could argue that the NDH Serbs suffered an comparatively high death rate, thus being victims of genocide. On the other hand, the destruction was within such proportions that instead one might prefer to speak of an attempted genocide. If, however, one believes that the mass killings were instrumental in the sense that they primarily aimed at inciting people to flee, the killings would probably constitute what has been defined as ethnocide." Regardless, there are a number of sources (such as Bruce McDonald or Korb, who is also cited in the article) that dispute the classification of various Balkan genocides as genocides, but that is a different topic. Tezwoo (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with 200-350,000 but since there are objections I put the max at 500,000 to avoid an edit-war. It should probably still be included in the infobox. By the way, on the Chetniks war crimes article, you added a random Bosnian historian who wrote that the Chetniks killed 100,000 Muslims.1 Kočović and Žerjavić put the total death toll of Bosnian Muslims of all causes at 86,000 and 103,000 respectively which makes that estimate likely highly exaggerated and impossible. The same argument you are using to exclude some estimates here you are not applying there. --Griboski (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article on the Chetnik war crimes has Žerjavić's numbers in the lead and the infobox, and his numbers are presented currently as the high estimate. That Bosnian historian is only in the article body. Compared to this topic, 350 as the high estimate would be somewhat above Žerjavić's total death toll for NDH Serbs, both civilians and combatants, and somewhat below Kočović's (370). So similar to the difference between their estimates for Muslims and that of the Bosnian historian.

The dispute tag was in the lead primarily because of the 500,000 figure. Tezwoo (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

500,000 is above the total Serb death toll for entire Yugoslavia for both combatants and civilians, by both Žerjavić and Kočović - We really need to stop citing the two of them as final and crown evidence. Their calculations are extremely important, but they are not the only ones that exist in the world. ... and that figure is cited by a very small number of authors - Many relevant historians and genocide scholars, some of them focused on the NDH (Yad Vashem Рesearch Center, Yeomans, Charny, Kallis, Kostash, Avramov, Bartrop, Hockenos, Niewyk, Nicosia...), claim these figures. That is not “a very small number of authors” and they are not fringe or non-reliable. I'm not sure there is a single Wikipedia article that ignores such powerful sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those names you mentioned did a thorough research on the number of victims of WW2 in Yugoslavia, and some of them didn't actually claim that the Ustaše killled 500,000 Serbs.

Hockenos wrote that "500,000 Serbs and 200,000 Croats perished during the war years" [10], meaning, during World War II in Yugoslavia as a whole, not by the Ustaše. 500 and 200 for those two groups are roughly Žerjavić's and Kočović's estimates for the entire war in Yugoslavia.

Kallis didn't say that the Ustaše killed 500,000 Serbs. In a reference to Jasenovac, he wrote that "of the total of approximately 500,000 Serb victims, up to a tenth perished there" [11] This can mean, and it probably does, that of the 500,000 Serbs that died throughout the war in Yugoslavia, a tenth died in Jasenovac.

Smilja Avramov was the advisor to Milošević and assisted in the defence in the Karadžić trial and some other persons accused by the ICTY. Hardly a reliable source for the number of Ustaše victims. I would also like to see in which book did Myrna Kostash mention that figure and the quote.

Charny is actually Damir Mirković who wrote a short segment on the NDH in which he put the number killed by the Ustaše at 400,000 [12]. In the same book, there's a section in which it is claimed that Tito is one of the "bloodiest megamurderers" of the 20th century, and that he murdered a staggering 1,172,000 people [13].

Bartrop is actually Alexander Mikaberidze, who in a very short segment regarding the Ustaše also put the number of those killed by the Partisans after the war at up to 250,000, "most of them Croats". Therefore, those are two fringe figures. [14]

Yeomans wrote "at least 200,000 and possibly as many as 500,000", and for that he cites Kočović and Dulić, neither of which say that "possibly as many as 500,000" were killed by the Ustaše. [15]

Niewyk and Nicosia are authors of the same book in which they mentioned the figure of 500,000, which is a "Guide to the Holocaust" and very shortly covers this topic. Yad Vashem is a tertiary source anyway.

So yes, a very small number of authors, mostly in a few dictionaries or guides that cover this period in a single page, mention a death toll of 500,000, along with some other incredible numbers such as those for Tito's Partisans. Tezwoo (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss the reliability of sources, and especially to review and assess the quality of work of some professionals. Numerous statements here are arbitrarily interpreted and taken out of context. As in other articles on mass killings, all numbers from relevant sources should be mentioned as part of the range.--WEBDuB (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This whole section started with Peacemaker67 evaluating the claims of some sources regarding the number of victims, so I believe this is the place to do the same for the 500,000 figure and the alleged "many" scholars that support it. It is clear that many of the scholars you listed (with no evidence provided) don't mention the 500k figure in the context of Ustaše victims, but as the total number of deaths for the entire war. And some are clearly unreliable such as Smilja Avramov, who was the advisor to Slobodan Milošević. The few sources that actually do mention the 500k figure as Ustaše victims, and which mostly aren't even focused on this topic and cover it in a single page, represent a very minor (and fringe) viewpoint. Tezwoo (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Even in your attempt to review professional works here, it turns out that several reliable sources claim that it is possible the number of victims of genocide can be up to 500,000. It is not fringe and there is no reason to exclude that from the range.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue photo in montage

The inclusion of Stepinac in the photo montage is undue. While Stepinac's role in not speaking out openly against the genocide is controversial, it is hardly a justified inclusion in what should be six iconic photographs directly relevant to the genocide. It needs to be replaced by another photo, perhaps another person that was directly involved like Luburić, or something graphic to reinforce the brutality of the Ustaše. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it doesn't have to be a picture from the trial? For example, Ljubo Miloš on his way to trial.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Stepinac is directly relevant to the Ustaše military and the genocide as their vicar, and also to the Ustaše government because of his public support. Notrium (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, while his role is shady to say the least, he was the head of the Church organisation whose members have been directly involved in massacres and genocide. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Nadbiskup Stepinac 1946. izveden je pred sud s konstruiranim optužbama da je bio ratni zločinac i duhovni poticatelj genocidnih progona srpskog stanovništva u NDH. U publicističkim radovima kasnijih desetljeća te su optužbe čak i proširivane pa je stigmatiziran kao glavni ideolog ustaštva i genocida nad Srbima, što je laž" "In 1946, Archbishop Stepinac was brought before a court with fabricated accusations that he was a war criminal and a spiritual instigator of the genocidal persecution of the Serb population in the Independent State of Croatia. In the journalistic works of later decades, these accusations were even expanded, so he was stigmatized as the main ideologue of the Ustasha movement and genocide against Serbs, which is a lie." This is a comment from Croatian historian which deals with this issue Ivo Goldstein (2018). As far as I know and his father had a similar opinion. It should first see how many sources connecting Stepinac to genocide, ie that he is part of that genocide because of his actions. I haven’t researched that issue so I don’t know. If @Peacemaker67 suggests this I guess he doesn't do it for no reason ie I guess that those sources who speak of Stepinac as a major participant in the genocide probably do not exist or in a couple of sources. So it would be good to list all these sources which connect Stepinac and genocide, that all those who are interested including me can express an opinion for this proposal. Otherwise it would be logical if this sources do not exist in large numbers that his picture has nothing to do with introductory part, but as I said I do not know what the sources speaking, I know what Goldstein says. When the sources arrive I will say my opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Only one author’s view?

@WEBDuB: The edit you made you stated four authors confirm the quote but I see only one cited author. Are there other that can be cited to confirm? Page numbers would help too. OyMosby (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Everything is already in the body of the article. Genocide of Serbs in the NDH is widely known as one of the deadliest in history. It is sometimes stated that it was only surpassed by Hitler's regime and the Khmer Rouge. That is well documented and has stood as a stable version for a long time.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I am taking about the line in the body that is also in the intro. Could you please cite the other three authors. Also please cite the source that backs NDH genocide as “The deadliest in history”. Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is disputed, everything has been cited and documented for a long time. (WP:STABLE) Everything is cited in the section “Toll of victims and genocide classification”. I really thought we had established good cooperation and communication. Please stop making such changes, initiating unnecessary discussions and creating an atmosphere in which I am the subject of attacks and long-term abuse by ultranationalists, which includes insults and presenting private information about me. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me? If this is your idea of “good cooperation and communication” perhaps we have different ideas of the definition of it. I made one edit one time and decided to take it to the talk page to understand where the 3 other sources for this statement “ Proportional to the population, the NDH was one of the most lethal Europeam regimes.”. You cannot add content a few months ago and then claim “it is now stable therefore it stays” as a legitimate argument. And claiming my reasonable question for more sources as “creating an atmosphere for other people attacking” to shut me up is illegitimate as well. It is necessary as you made a claim and failed to back it up. Which instead of answering you diverted to accusations against me. Which I highly recommend you do not do for your benefit. Your personal issues are not my problem. Take it up with admins and report boards for problematic IPs. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby is right, for this information we need confirmation in neutral English sources. Mikola22 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue was @Tezwoo: stated that the line was one author’s opinion. Their edit was undone and I simply reinstated their edit only to be reverted again. I asked where are these “four authors” backing the quote but never got an answer yet the quote remains in the article. ::::

There is several reliable Engislih-language sources. OyMosby, sorry and thank you! --WEBDuB (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not question the language or reliability. @Tezwoo: Maybe you can better explain? WEBDuB, you still did not state the three other sources that back the quote “ Proportional to the population, the NDH was one of the most lethal Europeam regimes.” in question. You claim “Dulić, Israeli, Payne, Charny“ all make the same claim. Give the citations and pages. Should be simple to do if they all claim the same. All I’m asking. Just stating “there are several sources” doesn't mean much. OyMosby (talk)<

Because there seem to be different views on this. According to Hoare (Genocide in the former Yugoslavia: a critique of left revisionism's denial: "It is of course true that the Serb people suffered grievously at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators in Yugoslavia (Ustashas, Chetniks and others), but this suffering was on a scale little or no greater than that of the Croats, Muslims, and other Yugoslavs or of the Poles, Greeks, Ukrainians, and East Europeans generally. It certainly was not on a par with the fate that befell the Jews in Europe under the Nazis." Tezwoo (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoare is relevant, but generally not neutral on Serb-related topic. He has been even criticized as the NDH revisionist. As I have already said, everything is already documented and cited in the article: Tomislav Dulić stated that Serbs in NDH suffered among the highest casualty rates in Europe during the World War II.[109] The genocide scholar Israel Charny lists the Independent State of Croatia as the third most lethal regime in the twentieth century, killing an average of 2.51% of its citizens per year.[200]... American historian Stanley G. Payne stated that direct and indirect executions by NDH regime were an “extraordinary mass crime”, which in proportionate terms exceeded any other European regime beside Hitler's Third Reich.[202] He added the crimes in the NDH were proportionately surpassed only by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and several of the extremely genocidal African regimes.[202] Raphael Israeli wrote that “a large scale genocidal operations, in proportions to its small population, remain almost unique in the annals of wartime Europe.”[69] These are extremely important facts that should not be left out either in the article or in the lead section. Otherwise, it would be downplaying the significance of genocide.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dulić's casualty rate is for both combatants and civilians. He wrote in Utopias of Nation, p.317 : "Moreover, it is important to reiterate that not all Serbs were killed by the Ustashe". He can't be used for the claim that the Ustashe regime was among the deadliest in history, because he doesn't say that.

And I just noticed now that what I wrote in the previous comment regarding the source that "megamurderer" Tito murdered 1,172,000 people [16], is in fact the same source/section (listed here as "Israel Charny", but is in fact Rudolph J. Rummel's work) that the NDH was the third most lethal regime. [17] That would mean that Tito's regime killed almost twice as many people as the NDH. Therefore, Rummel's work doesn't look like a reliable source for the claim.

So we are left with Payne, who in the same sentence puts the number of NDH victims at "possibly as many as 150,000 victims", and Israeli, both of which are contrasted by Hoare, who is much more familiar with this topic. Tezwoo (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a place to do reviews and evaluate the quality of research or professional books. That has already been done and we must respect the relevant sources. If the author did not exclude the victims of the battles as part of the genocidal campaign, we should not do that either. It is especially worrying when everything is done in tendentious editing (possible WP:CPP), at the same time the number of victims of the Ustaše genocide is decreasing and the number of Croatian victims in other articles is increasing. Especially at a time when there is simultaneous pressure on Serb-related topics, but also tense atmosphere and long-term abuse. Editors need to understand that all nationalisms and war crimes should be consistently covered on Wikipedia. That is the proof of impartiality and good faith.--WEBDuB (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Major WP:OR and "critical analysis" can be seen in several posts above. That's not for Wikipedia. You can write your own thesis/viewpoints/critics of other people's works and publish those on Academia. The point is - the max. figure for 500K is confirmed in several sources and it stays. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

These comments are non-answers regarding the issues raised on the talk page. Discussing cited sources, pointing out that some sources are mispresented, and bringing up sources that contradict a particular claim, is not OR. Instead of implying some major conspiracy, try to address the specific issues raised here. Tezwoo (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is this article set to low importance??? 77.180.37.34 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Original research

Head of Serbian Orthodox priest and Ustaše

• This image is WP:OR. The source which says that this is head of Serbian Orthodox priest does not exist as evidence. Also this picture according to source "Arhiv Znaci"[18] is from Muzej revolucije naroda Jugoslavije (Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia) and there writes that: "Informacije i materijale, koji se nalaze na vebsajtu foto.mij.rs, korisnik ili posetilac vebsajta može da koristi isključivo za sopstvene potrebe, odnosno u nekomercijalne svrhe, pri čemu ne sme doći do kršenja naznačenih autorskih prava i prava intelektualne svojine ili drugih prava o kojima postoji obaveštenje..The information and materials, which can be found on the website foto.mij.rs, can be used by the user or visitor of the website exclusively for their own needs, ie for non-commercial purposes, without infringing the indicated copyrights and intellectual property rights or other rights for which there is a notice".[19] which means that this is possible and WP:COPYVIO issue. Mikola22 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikola22, if that is the pic that was removed by the admin on the other article, go ahead and remove it from this article too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Serb burned with the church

On 11 or 12 May 1941, 260–300 Serbs were herded into an Orthodox church and shot, after which it was set on fire. The idea for this massacre reportedly came from Mirko Puk, who was the Minister of Justice for the NDH.

• This information is WP:OR because Goldstein in his source doesn't say that, also this information is presented as a historical fact("Serb burned with the church") which according to recent sources(Serb of Croatia and Serbian) it is not. So this information must be presented in NPOV. Also, my opinion is that this information is too strong historical fact for which we do not have evidence in recent sources especially not in the source of the greatest authority as far as crimes in the NDH are concerned Slavko Goldstein, so I as a editor would not put this information in the article. Mikola22 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

Possible WP:COPYVIO

File:Children in Sisak concentration camp.jpg [20]

• This image is from "Museum of the Revolution of the People of Yugoslavia" [21] nd does not have a permit for public use. Explained here.[22] Mikola22 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of the znaci pics are not properly licensed, as they have not been published elsewhere (to my knowledge), so they cannot have a US PD licence even though they might be PD-Yugoslavia as they are over 25 years old. They are best avoided, as they would never survive a GAN image licence review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have gone through and nominated znaci images in this article for deletion on Commons and removed them from this article for now. It they survive deletion, then they can be reinserted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I know you've talked about COPYVIO before and that this is a problem on Wikipedia. Maybe there are similar images(which are allowed) for replacement, so this lack of images can certainly be replaced. Mikola22 (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there may well be books, reports or newspapers (probably published in Yugoslavia) in which these images were originally published. If they were published by the government or long enough ago, they may be PD in the US. In some cases, they may be able to be justified under a non-free rationale, but such images can only be hosted on Wikipedia, not on Commons, so the Commons files have to go regardless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What's up with the intro

There's not a single citation. I'm new to wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure you would need citations for statements like that. Now it just looks like someone typing up whatever they would like this article to say. VEcev (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the body and doesn’t need citations if everything in it is cited to a reliable source in the body. Read MOS:LEAD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about edit regarding Jews

Check everything this editor writes, everything he invents nothing is written what he writes in that book. Here, look at page 72. That user wrote "Likewise, Jews were forced to wear the armband with the letter" Ž ", fort Židov (Jew)" and there it is not on page 72 https://books.google.hr/books?id=rhGMDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Croatia+Under+Ante+Pavelic+:+America,+the+Ustase+and+Croatian+Genocide+in+World+War+II&hl=hr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Croatia%20Under%20Ante%20Pavelic%20%3A%20America%2C%20the%20Ustase%20and%20Croatian%20Genocide%20in%20World%20War%20II&f=false 89.172.79.218 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I possess this volume but I copied the page number wrongly. It's page 75. Quote: "Jews were stripped of their citizenship and property, forced to wear a yellow arm band with the letter Z (Zidov), forbidden to marry gentiles and removed from all government positions."

Presumably the author forgot the diacritic, the Serbocorat word is Židov. Ž, not Z.--Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing Charny

I'm going to remove Charny because his calculations are so off, they cannot be accepted as correct. This is his 15 most lethal regimes in Encyclopedia of Genocide: no Nazi Germany! No fascist Italy! But for some reason, the USSR is attributed a death toll of 54,769,000 killed people! That is impossible, by any reasonable statistic. It would mean a 1/4 of the entire USSR was killed, which is unsubstantiated. Even more problematic, on 29, he claims Tito killed 1,172,000 people, which would make him even worse than the Ustashe which killed 655,000 people, but both of these figures are inflated and not accepted by historians. His list is thus severaly flawed and erroneous, and should not be used in the article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2023

Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia → Serbian genocide (Independent State of Croatia) or Serbian Holocaust – Make the naming convention of the article match the majority of other genocide articles like Rwandan genocide, Cambodian genocide, Bosnian genocide etcetera or the naming convention of the Romani Holocaust article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanisherman (talk • contribs)

• I'm not sure these terms are found in reliable sources. We shouldn't be trying to force some sort of consistency because article title criteria is not as trivial. --Joy (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. They aren't the common name for this subject by a long chalk. They are also potentially confusing. Serbian Holocaust and Serbian Genocide could mean either Serbian people were the victims of the genocide/holocaust, but could also reference Serbian people who were responsible for the genocide of others (Muslims and Croats). The current article title is much clearer. The proposed article title would be a very poor article title across a range of factors such as clarity even if it was the clear common name (which it is not). This has been suggested before (check the archives) and failed to gain significant support except from Serb POV-pushers trying to equate the genocide carried out by the NDH against Serbs with the actual Holocaust. It is a ghastly attempt to portray Serbs as victims equal to the Jews and arose to popularity among revisionist Serb historians in the 1990s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

problematic picture

File:Logor Gradina used by Croat Ustaše (спомен подручје Доња Градина, Република Српска).jpg is problematic as it is pretending one of the highest numbers of victims and it is not an iconographic picture. There are certainly more neutral and better pics to illustrate the remembrance. 5glogger (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It certainly should not be in the infobox, and should only be used in the context of explaining that the inflated claim of 700,000 is sustained by some fringe sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)