This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Pajica Omčikus is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 2 November 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
There are obvious grammar and POV issues with this article. The very selective sourcing and pro-Chetnik/ant-Partisan tone gives it strong POV. I will seek to address this via edits in the first instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not single evidence for accusations for POV issues is presented. Most of the sources are published in Yugoslavia during communist rule, so pro-Chetnik/anti-Partisan "selective sourcing" accusation is obviously incorrect. In the absence of valid arguments supported with evidence I will remove POV tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with "The Croatian Communist Party issued an order to group of armed communists from Lika to attack Lapac and Srb.". The author is given as Karlovac, but this is the place of publication. The volume of Zbornik isn't given, and it says it is on p. 283. However, a quotation is given, which roughly translates as "His commander, Pajica Omčikus, surrendered himself with a group of a dozen Chetniks, and the remnants of the regiment were broken up or captured." This has nothing to do with the Croatian communist party, or any orders to attack Lapac or Srb. There will no doubt be several more problems of this nature. Re-instating tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Omčikus and other imprisoned Yugoslav Chetniks were murdered by communists in March 1942" is cited to Popović, Jovo (1988). Gurman: bosanska kuhinja. Stvarnost.? What on earth, how is this a reliable source? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veselin Đuretić is a highly biased source on this subject. He was expelled from the Yugoslav communist party, was a strong Serbian nationalist, an advocate for the recognition of the Chetniks as an anti-fascist force (which they clearly were not, given they rarely fought either the Italians or Germans, and a significant number of them made agreements with them), and was involved with the Committee for the Truth about Radovan Karadžić. I've pointed this out elsewhere where he has been used as a source on the Chetniks. Enough said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kosta Nikolić is also a highly biased source on this subject. He is a well-known historical revisionist, and apologist for DM, Nedić and other collaborators, and highly biased against the Partisans, and is the author of a highly controversial school book that contradicts the academic consensus on WWII in Yugoslavia, and minimises the crimes of the collaborators against Jews in Serbia, Banjica concentration camp etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 you again contradict yourself. pro-Chetnik POV using what appears to be entirely Serbian sources, needs balancing with Partisan perspective (diff). Even if there are Pro-Chetnik/anti-Partisan sources used in this article they are balanced with majority of other sources used in this article building who are pro communist sources published in Yugoslavia during communist rule. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of contradictory and inconsistent sources criteria this will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise. The pro-Chetnik revisionist sources are used to paint the Partisans in the worst possible light, and the communist sources are used for bare facts. That is the pattern with you, and it is tendentious editing. You have, unsurprisingly, provided no info on the failed verification of the Zbornik material, no info about what source Bokan 1972a is, or explained why you are using highly biased Serb revisionist historians. No wonder you are withdrawing from this article. If I had a dollar for every time you created a POV article then failed to answer any queries about it, and pulled out from discussion of it, I would be a rich man. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With last edit of editor Antidiskriminator [1] we know even less because most sources cannot be verified(WP:VERIFY). He could write fairy tales and we can do nothing. Probably and editor Antidiskriminator does not know what exactly is written in the sources and in which context. Mikola22 (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it, Antid needs to provide translations of what he claims these quotes mean, as well as book titles and author names rendered in Cyrillic. I no longer AGF Antid's edits, and can only assume he doesn't give these names in English because he knows they would quickly be identified as pro-Chetnik revisionist authors. I've already identified one that doesn't support what he cited it for, there may well be others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
