Talk:Chetniks/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Ljubica Štefan allegedly a controversial author

I put information of the Croatian historian from the book ie RS to article. If this historian is controversial author then you must presented reliable sources which talks about it. There is a possibility of verification this source on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Deleting data because someone doesn't like it is not according to wikipedia rules. You cannot delete something from an article with a personal view of that or some other author. In any case, RS will say whether her book is RS or not and not some editor anonymous from wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are certainly some pretty strong criticisms of her work by a number of Yugoslav specialists (largely that she is biased), but I didn't drill down into academic reviews of her work. Instead, I replaced it with similar information from a specialist book on religion in WWII, Bank and Gevers, published by Bloomsbury. Problem solved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: But it is a matter of principle and procedure. We can't Croatian historian and his book that has positive reviews (for now I found one) move from an article for alleged controversy of this historian. There was no problem here. Her book is very good and has a lot of valuable data and conclusions and should be part of wikipedia. Otherwise she transmits that information from book of Jozo Tomasevich, »Četnici u Drugom svjetskom ratu«, 1979., page 165 (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks,) so you can add and that book as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67. My issue was not with the text itself but the source. I wrote a response to Mikola22 just before you made your edit and posted on the talk page. It's not as relevant now but I'll post regardless.

The onus is on the one adding questionable or contentious material (something that's been a pattern for you) to explain why the source they are adding is worthy of inclusion and why they should be considered a RS, not the other way around. In this case, we have no reason to assume Štefan is a RS just because she is a historian. But since your edit was restored, I'll explain it.

In her books Mitovi i zatajena povijest & Istinom i činjenicama za Hrvatsku, Štefan claimed that Jasenovac was used as a concentration camp and execution site by Tito and the Communist authorities after World War II, from 1945-1948 for political prisoners.12

Translation #1: "She wrote about the victims in post-war Tito's Jasenovac camp from 1945 to 1948. In support of her claim, she investigated and cited several witnesses, along with a dozen listed bibliographic sources. She claimed that after May 1945, until 1948, Jasenovac was a communist execution site for many Croatian martyrs from the Way of the Cross. Post-communist, regime critics and journalists.."

Translation #2: "Ljubica Štefan wrote a valuable work that confirms that the Jasenovac camp worked as a communist camp for years after the end of World War II."

I am not aware of any reliable historical publications that confirms this. As this Balkan Insight article points out, this theory is unproven. It usually goes hand in hand with the theory that Jasenovac was just a "labor camp" peddled by the far-right in Croatia who seek to downplay or deny Ustashe genocide.3

John K. Roth writes that in her work From Fairy Tale to Holocaust, Štefan alleges that Serbia ran an independent state during the Second World War. It's a well established fact that Serbia during WWII was occupied by Germans under a quisling government so this is bizarre. Roth's book is unavailable for preview but terms are searchable.4

From her wiki page: Professor Jovan Byford of The Open University notes that Štefan "belongs to a group of authors whose works support the Croatian side against the Serbian side in propaganda war" that try to demonstrate that "collaborators during WWII with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia from Jews and committed much worse crimes than the Ustasha".

There's also content from her hr.wikipedia page which says that Štefan wrote that Nikola Tesla was of Croatian ethnic origin, a view unsupported by the consensus of scholars.

So given this author's bias and propensity for fringe theories, I hardly see how she can be considered a RS, especially for the text you added. --Griboski (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Mikola22, you only have to Google "Ljubica Štefan criticism" and you'll find several very pointed criticisms of her work (including some of the stuff Griboski has detailed above), including that she is highly biased and that she has stated as fact several important things that are very clearly wrong (the status of occupied Serbia and supposed independence of the Nedić regime for example). Others have described her as a propagandist. However, if you can find some laudatory academic views, then she could possibly be considered reliable but needing in-text attribution when used for controversial material (which is how we treat Cohen). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• In her books Mitovi i zatajena povijest & Istinom i činjenicama za Hrvatsku, Štefan claimed that Jasenovac was used as a concentration camp and execution site by Tito and the Communist authorities after World War II, from 1945-1948 for political prisoners Yes and? It is forbidden to write about it? The first source is a private internet portal and article of mathematics professor, Prof.Dr. Darko Zubrinic. The other source is also some internet portal in which is mentioned "komunistički logor" communist camp and not a "concentration camp".

• I am not aware of any reliable historical publications that confirms this. You have this scientific paper "Post-War Concentration Camp Jasenovac: Witness Testimonies and Newer Archival Sources" in which all historians and sources(which exist) spoke about "work" of that camp after 1945.

• John K. Roth writes that in her work From Fairy Tale to Holocaust, Štefan alleges that Serbia ran an independent state during the Second World War. It's a well established fact that Serbia during WWII was occupied by Germans under a quisling government so this is bizarre. Roth's book is unavailable for preview but terms are searchable. Yes, because of one opinion that we do not know how it writes in the original book we cannot all her books and the author himself considered as controversial. We need a lot more RS talking about it.

• From her wiki page: Professor Jovan Byford of The Open University notes that Štefan "belongs to a group of authors whose works support the Croatian side against the Serbian side in propaganda war" that try to demonstrate that "collaborators during WWII with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia from Jews and committed much worse crimes than the Ustasha". Original: "Na interpretaciju Sajmišta i njegove povijesti ranih devedesetih svakako su utjecale i polemike o odnosu Srba i Hrvata prema Židovima koje su u to vrijeme vođene na relaciji Zagreb-Beograd. S hrvatske strane, najaktivniji u ovom svojevrsnom ratu riječima bilisu autori poput Tomislava Vukovića, Ljubice Štefan, Josipa Pečarića, Ante Kneževića i američkog publicista Philipa Cohena. U svojim djelima oni su nastojali predstaviti Srbe kao stvarni “genocidni narod,” čiji su kolaboracionisti za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata uz blagoslov Srpske pravoslavne crkve počinili mnogo strašnije zločine od ustaške NDH i očistili Srbiju od Židova. Oni su tvrdili da je u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji postojala “zavjera šutnje,” ali da je ona prikrivala genocidni karakter srpskog nacionalizma i zataškavala njegove krvave tragove. Dakle, hrvatska strana je u ovoj polemici obilno posuđivala (i okretala) argumente svojih srpskih pandana, koji su prvi pisali o “zavjeri šutnje,” genocidnoj prirodi (hrvatskog) nacionalizma, ulozi (katoličke) crkve u genocidu počinjenom u Drugom svjetskom ratu i slično. Sa srpske strane, glavni sudionici u debati bili su Milan Bulajić,zatim autori knjige Istina o “srpskom antisemitizmu” Andrija Gams i Aleksandar Levi, i Jaša Almuli, u to vrijeme jedan od portparola kontroverznog i nacionalistički orijentiranog Društva srpsko-židovskog prijateljstva. Oni su, kao odgovor na “optužbe” iz Zagreba,uglavnom nastojali u potpunosti negirati postojanje antisemitizma u Srbiji, potencirajući pritom njegovo rašireno prisustvo u Hrvatskoj, kako u prošlosti tako i danas. Iza ove pole-mike vrlo brzo su stala ministarstva (Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja u Srbiji i Mini-starstvo vanjskih poslova u Hrvatskoj), kao i režimski mediji u obje države, što ukazuje da je debata zapravo vođena na nivou državne propagande." "The interpretation of Sajmište and its history in the early 1990s was certainly influenced by the controversies about the attitude of Serbs and Croats towards Jews at that time between Zagreb and Belgrade. On the Croatian side, the most active in this kind of war were authors like Tomislav Vuković, Ljubica Štefan, Josip Pečarić, Ante Knežević and the American publicist Philip Cohen. In their works they sought to present the Serbs as a real “genocidal people,” whose collaborators committed much more horrific crimes than the Ustasha NDH during World War II with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia of Jews. They claimed that there was a "conspiracy of silence" in socialist Yugoslavia, but that it covered up the genocidal character of Serbian nationalism and covered up its bloody traces, so the Croatian side borrowed (and turned) the arguments of its Serbs in this controversy pandanus, who first wrote about the “conspiracy of silence,” the genocidal nature of (Croatian) nationalism, the role of the (Catholic) church in the genocide committed in World War II and similar clames. On the Serbian side, the main participants in the debate were Milan Bulajić, then the authors of the book The Truth About "Serbian Anti-Semitism" Andrija Gams and Aleksandar Levi, and Jasa Almuli, at that time one of the spokespersons of the controversial and nationalist Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society. In response to the "accusations" from Zagreb, they generally sought to completely deny the existence of anti-Semitism in Serbia, emphasizing its widespread presence in Croatia, both in the past and today. The ministries (Ministry of Culture and Information in Serbia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Croatia), as well as the regime media in both countries, quickly became behind this controversy, which indicates that the debate was actually conducted at the level of state propaganda."

• There's also content from her hr.wikipedia page which says that Štefan wrote that Nikola Tesla was of Croatian ethnic origin, a view unsupported by the consensus of scholars. She quoted his diary, which is allegedly in the museum of Nikola Tesla in the bunker. It is interesting that we have never seen this diary even though it exists. There are no formulas in it which are significant to science, only his personal informations which are, as we see, forbidden to the public. Whay? However why would her claim be an obstacle to the presentation of her books i.e. RS?

• Therefore, what we see is actually nothing, some of its views are controversial and now all her books should not be present on Wikipedia, this is not anarchy this is Wikipedia where we must respect some procedures which I listed them in the first post. Mikola22 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding it very hard to follow your very long posts. Try to be brief and concise and link to reliable sources that support your argument she is reliable. I suggest you find some academic reviews of her work that are positive, and use them to expand her article. All I can see at present is highly respected academics like Byford heavily criticising her for spreading false information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To summarize we do not have a single RS presented who view the books and papers or Ljubica Štefan as controversial. We have clame from John K. Roth but I have not read what he says(specifically in the book) nor I read statement of Ljubica Štefan from his book. I suppose that we are not going to take away her title of historian for one statement (I don't know which one). Zlatko Kudelić Croatian historian about the book of Ljubica Štefan "Srpska pravoslavna crkva i fašizam" I quote: Završavajući osvrt na knjigu Ljubice Šteifan možemo istaknuti njeno veliko značenje za hrvatsku historiografiju budući da sadržajem negira ustaljenu crno - bijelu interpretaciju događaja vezanih uz drugi svjetski rat na području bivše Jugoslavije te pokazuje neodrživost teza koje hrvatskoj strani pripisuju sano negativne karakteristike. S obzirom na aktualnost ovog djela bilo bi poželjno knjigu Ljubice Štefan objaviti i na stranim jezicima. "Concluding the review of Ljubica Šteifan's book, we can emphasize its great significance for Croatian historiography, since its content denies the established black and white interpretation of events related to the Second World War in the former Yugoslavia and shows the unsustainability of theses that attribute only negative characteristics to the Croatian side. Given the relevance of this work, it would be desirable to publish the book by Ljubica Štefan on foreign languages." Mikola22 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you are dismissing these criticisms (Roth and Byford are both RS) as "nothing" shows you don't understand or don't want to understand what constitutes a RS. They're not simply declared or always assumed by default. They're based on different factors like the person, their work and peer review and if it's published in a quality press such as an academic institution. These are some of Štefan's issues found only with minimal research. Byford also says in Sabrina P. Ramet's Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two that Štefan belongs to a group of "Croatian writers and publicists" [who have written] "a series of propagandist pieces of quasi-historical writing".5 Because there are propagandists on the other side like Bulajić, that doesn't negate her own controversies.

If someone promotes false or fringe theories that don't align with the scholarly consensus then that person is an outlier in the academic community and isn't a RS. If Jasenovac was used as a camp post-WII by Tito, then this should be covered in mainstream historiography, not used by a small group of right-wing crackpots to advance their conspiracy theories. --Griboski (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Byford also says in Sabrina P. Ramet's Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two that Štefan belongs to a group of "Croatian writers and publicists" [who have written] "a series of propagandist pieces of quasi-historical writing" This is Byford paper in Sabrina P. Ramet's book. Where are RS which dispute Ljubica Štefan books and this book? If someone in this case Ljubica Štefan has some clames confirmed by the evidence in their book I don't know why would that be controversial, i.e. I first have to see which RS talk about her books. Thus, attacking historian who is highly respected in Croatia that is controversial with two sources talking about it generally makes no sense. Therefore, there must exist scientific papers and RS who rate this book negatively. We are not in the market, this is wikipedia. This book mostly uses Yugoslav sources as well as wartime sources(41-45). And what we should do now? Mikola22 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, the other authors Byford mentions in Ramet's book as being part of that group are believed to be pseudonyms Štefan used to avoid scrutiny, which is telling. "Highly respected in Croatia" is not an argument. It also depends by who. There are agenda-driven fringe historians in Serbia who are also respected, for the wrong reasons. Her "claims" can only be confirmed through other and RS works, not her own research. Serious issues regarding her work have been provided and you've just disregarded it. I also wouldn't be surprised if she's obscure enough in the larger scholarly community and that due to some of her fringe writings, it would explain a lack of in-depth coverage/criticism in English sources (lack of importance). Again, WP:SCHOLAR, WP:FRINGE and our own WP:OR all matters. If you're convinced that Jasenovac was used as a camp by Yugoslav authorities after WWII, publish your own work and have it become a historical breakthrough. But fringe theories shouldn't be entertained and it's been explained to you many times. Anyway, based on the information we have, I'd venture to say that even attributing her in cases where other sources don't confirm her claims would be problematic. Best to stick to other sources whenever possible. --Griboski (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Based on the opinion of multiple editors grounded in RS it can be concluded that Ljubica Štefan was indeed a controversial author whose works should not be considered as reliable. Editors insisting to use her works in article building should gain consensus at RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

First sentence

Interested editors should take a look at the first sentence. It is a long one, and would probably be better for one reading the article if it was shorter. Its text could be turned into two sentences, or some of it could be moved elsewhere in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, it would better for those reading the article if editors stopped focussing on the wording of the lead, worked on the body of the article and brought it up to an acceptable standard, then rewrote the lead to reflect what is in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right, but the history has shown that such delicate Balkan articles do not receive enough input and stability to have a well-written body. It is sad because they are important and meaningful topics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevent quote pertaining to chetniks

During World War II, Mile Budak .

(June 30, 1941), Stevan Moljević (a lawyer from Banja Luka who was also an ideologue of the Chetniks), published a booklet with the title "On Our State and Its Borders". Moljević asserted:

"One must take advantage of the war conditions and at a suitable moment seize the territory marked on the map, cleanse [očistiti] it before anybody notices and with strong battalions occupy the key places (...) and the territory surrounding these cities, freed of non-Serb elements. The guilty must be promptly punished and the others deported – the Croats to (significantly amputated) Croatia, the Muslims to Turkey or perhaps Albania – while the vacated territory is settled with Serb refugees now located in Serbia."

This quote is relevant to this page in describing ulterior motives. Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.116.63 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Information that doesn’t say much

MacDonald's personal opinion, which he admits "may well be refuted in future years" is that “genocide (of Serbs or Croats) in the occupied and divided Yugoslavia during the Second World War is very difficult to prove.

I think this information is not for the introductory part of the article, this information could find its place in the Legacy section. Otherwise it is not clear whose genocide it is, there are also some crimes immediately after the war and from this information we do not what it is about. In any case, I suggest moving this information to a suitable place. Mikola22 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, MacDonald's claim that there was no genocide of Serbs (at the very least) is incredibly fringe as it does not reflect the academic consensus, and has absolutely no place in the lead, and probably not anywhere in the article. That's why I've flagged it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

David Bruce MacDonald, who accepts that the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis forces to strengthen their hand against the Partisans, but claims that it would be highly misleading to suggest that the Chetniks collaborated in order to carry out the genocide of Croats and Muslims Yes, we also have and this information, so I think there are too many one person claim in the introductory part whether or not Chetniks carry out the genocide, in any case this information is not for the introductory part(my editorial opinion). And whether it should be part of the article, we should see how much this information has additional quality sources as confirmation. If this claim has no academic consensus (I have not researched it) my support for removing this information is here. Mikola22 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)