Talk:Operation Southeast Croatia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOperation Southeast Croatia has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 22, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

German operation names[edit]

The German operation names for this offensive are Unternehmen Sud-Ost Kroatien (or Kroatien Sud-Ost), Ozren, and Prijedor. The source is Shepherd, Ben. Terror in the Balkans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research! :) Do you perhaps know which was the "central" of the three so we might rename the article accordingly? -- Director (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Sud-Ost Kroatien. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I plan to create separate articles, as the more I look at this stuff, the more I realise the "X enemy offensives" construct has significant issues regarding continuity with some related operations and isn't really practical re: relating directly in WP article terms for some operations. I think the "Operation X" articles should still be related to the "enemy offensive" they are associated with (if in fact they are), but to state that "X enemy offensive" is in some way primarily related to a particular operation in this way really does not work at all with the Second enemy offensive and Sixth enemy offensive as they consisted of operations that were geographically widely separated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in the meantime, do we go with Operation South-east Croatia? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't mind covering more of the myriad operations of the Yugoslav Front, but I would prefer if we covered the three operations here as a group. This is nothing new or strange: many battle and campaign articles are named after the codename for the "central" operation. There are certainly sufficient sources which refer to this as the Second Enemy Offensive and generally use the "seven offensives" organization.
I have no problem with "Operation South-east Croatia". Though, shouldn't it be "Operation Southeast Croatia" per MoS? -- Director (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing I just remembered.. this operation didn't take place in what would be called "southeast Croatia" at any time other than 1941-45, and that only by the Axis. This is Bosnia.. Its not really a big problem, but it might be considered misleading. We should make it clear that this is not what we'd refer to today as "southeast Croatia". -- Director (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think it is important that the lead establish this very early on. And I bow to your knowledge of MoS as far as the hyphen is concerned. I'll move it and amend the lead. Feel free to tweak once I'm done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of this article from "Second Enemy Offensive" to "Operation Southeast Croatia"[edit]

I am against renaming of this article from "Second Enemy Offensive" to "Operation Southeast Croatia":

  • "Operation Southeast Croatia" - 0 GBS hits
  • "Second Enemy Offensive" bosnia 1942 - 14 GBS hits, many of them sources extensively used as sources in articles on this topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well hello, Antidiskriminator. The rationale and discussion behind the moving of all of the Seven enemy offensives to German operation names (of which this is the last one) is covered here [1] I invite you to read it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did and my opinion remains the same.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are welcome to it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert yourself and return the old name to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no indication that you opposed it prior to the move, which was suggested by DIREKTOR and supported by me. Feel free to submit a RfM if you believe it should be returned to the previous title. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The move was performed to preserve consistency on this subject, and is in accordance with previous WP:CONSENSUS on the naming of Yugoslav Front operations. "14 hits vs. several" is not a particularly convincing argument, such insignificant differences do not present a relevant COMMONNAME. -- Director (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 did not gain consensus for your point. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We did. -- Director (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the list of users who supported your point and link to their discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask: why are you here, Antidiskriminator? You're currently in conflict with Peacemaker, myself, and several other users on maybe a half-dozen articles, in about twice as many separate sections you created. Now you're starting another battleground. You did not edit or expand any of these articles one relevant iota, even when repeatedly asked, at times, to actually do the edits you propose. You never edited this article either, nor, for that matter, any of the Yugoslav Front operations that I'm aware. How did you happen to find your way here? In the context of previous behavior and WP:STICK problems, I believe this can now be viewed as convincing evidence of textbook WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I'd like to take this opportunity to again request that you please discontinue behavior of this sort. -- Director (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wil you please be so kind to prove your claim that you and Peacemaker67 gained consensus for your point by presenting the list of users who supported your point and link to their discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was between me and Peacemaker, and I believe PRODUCER has expressed his consent. After some discussion we agreed to implement this format, rather than the communist one I implemented before it (which, in turn, replaced the format I introduced even earlier). And yes, in case you're wondering, that is a WP:CONSENSUS - since noone else participates on these articles. It was on one of the talkpages.. and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to post links or "write lists" for you.
Antidiskriminator, let me be honest. I really don't like writing reports. Its difficult, it doesn't expand Wikipedia, it takes hours, then lasts for days, etc. And I've written so many I'm sick and tired of it, plus in principle I believe serious sanctions are used far too often here on our "Free" project. But, at some point, it becomes actually easier to report disruption and harassment than to deal with it on a daily basis.
What I'm saying here is: I'm lazy; and I'm basically trying to just resolve this without writing for hours. I've been a participant here for years, and I know obvious WP:T and WP:STICK and WP:HOUND when I see them. This my absolute last attempt to resolve this problem of ours with less work (you can tell by the length of the post :)). Please understand: should you ignore this appeal (again), should this textbook WP:HOUNDING continue here as well, should this become another WP:BATTLEGROUND you've started - this is going up on the appropriate noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it was wrong to claim that you and Peacemaker67 gained consensus for your point because you did not. I am against it and I presented argument for my position. New name violates WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONAME. None of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is met by new title which does not even exist in sources on English language. There are many other names used for this operation, but new name is not among them. It simply does not exist anywhere. There are no books, websites, news... nothing. Nothing support this name. Therefore:
  1. Recognizability criteria is not met. Nobody would recognize this operation under new name. Therefore it is not "recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic".
  2. Naturalness criteria is not met. New name is not "what the subject is actually called in English". Therefore new name is not something "readers are likely to look for or search with", nor it is something "editors naturally use to link from other articles"
  3. Precision criteria is not met. Since nobody has ever used that name in English language people can easily be mislead to believe that this was some operation in geographical region of Southeast Croatia.
  4. Conciseness criteria is also questionable.
  5. Consistency criteria is not met. All other articles about military operations meet WP:COMMONAME and WP:TITLE. Name of this article does not. A couple of wikipedia editors forged new name by translating it from German.
You and Peacemaker67 did not gain consensus for your point. Not only because I am against it, but because consensus is grounded in arguments based on policies an guidelines. Your position is not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. We gained consensus. And its based on policy. None of your points above apply. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator. I'm sick to death of this. Either stop hounding me or you'll get reported. I'm a fairly patient man, but you are stretching my patience to breaking point. I would rather be productive on WP, creating and improving articles, than writing reports, but I will shortly if this behaviour does not stop. I think you've had enough warnings now. The assumption that you are here because I (and possibly Director) are here is a reasonable one. Otherwise why are you here? You have had no involvement with these Yugoslav Front articles in my time on WP, have never edited them as far as I can remember (don't get me started on how you rarely if ever actually contribute in article space on articles whose talkpages you treat as a battleground).

PRODUCER (I assume), Director and I make a consensus. Our reasoning for the move of all the seven offensives is available at the link I identified, and the title is in accordance with WP policy. BTW, the name in English as used for this title is used throughout the main reference for this operation, Shepherd (of which I have a copy). This just shows the weakness of the Google Books hits you love so much. They are a blunt instrument which are trumped by actual sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please respect WP:NPA and "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
  • This is not the first time you and DIREKTOR renamed the article without first gaining consensus for your action, even in case when appropriateness of a move may be or actually is under dispute. According to Wikipedia:Requested moves in such cases you two should have gained consensus first by requesting a move (wp:rm). Please respect wikipedia rules, return the previous name of the article and gain consensus for the new name by startinng WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was gained among participating users, whether you accept that fact or not. -- Director (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfM is not required by WP policy when consensus is clear from the participants (you had yet to "appear" here at that stage, in the same way you had not yet turned up at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) when that page was moved. And you've had your last warning for wikihounding, which is exactly what this is, trying to make the same point you've been banging on about at the other article by attacking the move of this article in an effort to show that Director and/or I move pages "without consensus", so that you can make some case that Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and this article are some weird pattern of non-Wiki behaviour. It's a joke, and no-one's laughing. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please respect WP:NPA and "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I presented arguments for my position. My arguments are not "banging on". They are based on wikipedia rules.
With this comment you pointed to this discussion and repeatedly claimed that you gained consensus to rename this article. But the discussion at the page you pointed to does not contain such consensus. On the contrary. There is your conclusion with the list of names for seven offensives. That list includes "Second enemy offensive" as name for this article. And with this comment DIREKTOR confirmed that he is "perfectly fine with the list".
Then you changed your mind. On 29 September you proposed to rename this article and in 10:44 DIREKTOR wrote that he have "no problem with "Operation South-East Croatia"" and in 11:33 you renamed this article 49 minutes after DIREKTOR confirmed he does not have problem with it.
After 49 minutes.
27 minutes after your move I contested it and presented arguments based on wikipedia policy.
No. Renaming of this article was not discussed before you moved. You two don't have consensus. Please respect wikipedia rules, return the previous name of the article and gain consensus for the new name by starting WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no longer about the whole "Second Enemy Offensive", it is about a sub-part of it. I would be happy to create a new summary article called Second Enemy Offensive which has three WP:SPINOFF's of Operation Southeast Croatia, Operation Ozren and Operation Prijedor. Would that address your concerns? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Changing the topic of this article to match new disputed name you gave to this article is circumventing the normal process of consensus. Please respect wikipedia rules, return the previous name of the article and gain consensus for the new name by starting WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The move was in accordance with WP policy, and I have no intention of returning to the previous title. I will not be engaging further with this WP:WIKIHOUNDING disguised as righteous indignation over the title of an article you have shown not one iota of interest in up to now. My warning and your refusal to commit to not hounding me on further pages is indicative of your bad faith involvement here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you. Your move is contested. Therefore you should return the old name (and topic) to this article and go trough RM process. Wikipedia:Requested moves says: This process is necessary if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. Since we have dispute here I followed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and asked for a third opinion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O is not applicable here, more than two editors are involved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only you and me discussed if it is necessary to follow RM procedure in case of renaming the article from "Second Enemy Offensive" to "Operation Southeast Croatia". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, if I said something was white, you'd say it was black. Clearly Director agreed that a RM wasn't necessary. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please respect Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and Comment on content, not on the contributor.
  • DIREKTOR explained that you two agreed to rename this article. He referred to your agreement reached after 49 minutes discussion as consensus. 27 minutes after your move I contested it and explained that you should now return the old name (and topic) to this article and go trough RM process because Wikipedia:Requested moves says: This process is necessary if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. Only you disagreed with me about it and thereforee 3O is perfectly applicable here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Antidiskriminator. You have asked for a 3O about moving the page but have not waited for the result before moving the page? Just so we're clear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what my comment may be worth, titles should be consistent and since the other related articles aren't titled according to the Yugoslav terminology, this one shouldn't be moved.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit the article was again renamed from "Second Enemy Offensive" to "Operation Southeast Croatia" although it was obvious that this move would be (or already was) contested. Wikipedia:Requested moves says: This process is necessary if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. 49 minutes discussion contested after 27 minutes can not be referred to as consensus. I still believe that editor who thinks this article should be renamed should start RM process, without changing the topic of the article to match new disputed name, circumventing the normal process of consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antid, you are the one that asked for a 3O about the issue but acted to move this article before the 3O was provided. Four editors have now given their view about this article title, you are the only one opposing it, and you did so after it was first moved. It therefore lies with you to submit a RM, which, I will point out now (as I will if and when you submit a RM), would be a move back to a title that is inconsistent with the other six "enemy offensives". Your opposition to this move has not addressed any of the arguments that were pointed to regarding the moves of the other articles (moving away from titles that reflect "heroic Yugoslav communist" propaganda to relatively neutral Axis operation names etc etc). Your conduct in following me here and your dubious motive for doing so is currently under discussion at WP:AE. Any attempt to move-war will be reported. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a third opinion[edit]

I am coming here in response to a request for third opinion.

I don't think this is an appropriate subject for a third opinion. More than two people are involved. I recommend that you start a request for page move.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks as combatants[edit]

If I recall correctly the Chetniks were not actually combatants in this conflict. They were there, but (rather characteristically) did not fight. Am I wrong? The current infobox makes it out as though we've got 20,000 Chetnik combatants engaging the Axis? -- Director (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. Can you weave your infobox magic and make a third column for them? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could - if they're combatants. Non-combatants (by definition) should not be listed as combatants, whether they were there in a joint or separate capacity with regard to one side or another. Did they engage in combat? -- Director (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! (facepalm) now I see what your getting at. I haven't found any evidence that they did fight either the Germans or the Home Guard as yet. I think most if not all of them headed for the mountains or crossed the Drina. So maybe we leave them out of the infobox completely on the basis they didn't actually engage in combat. They are mentioned in the lead and the body of the article, so that probably enough. I'll pull them out of the infobox. We can always put them back in if some evidence surfaces. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any evidence at all that they engaged in combat, we should restore them. Otherwise, no point. -- Director (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include Ozren & Prijedor?[edit]

As I said previously [2], I don't believe operations Ozren and Prijedor warrant their own articles per WP:NOTE. Imo they can easily (and more appropriately) be included here as separate sections, or perhaps subsections of the "Aftermath" section. -- Director (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your logic, but I believe that they do in fact meet WP:NOTE on the basis that; they all have significant coverage in Shepherd (that much is obvious for this article already, and there is a similar level of coverage for the other two operations); Shepherd is a third party secondary WP:RS; details of all three operations are mentioned (not by name but as a subject within the date ranges) to a reasonable extent by both Tomasevich and Hoare (and probably others that deal with the Yugoslav historiography); and because once the three are properly developed merging them into one article will create a "long, bloated article" with a significant degree of complexity given the different geographic areas they were conducted in. I don't believe any of them will be so narrow that they cannot properly be developed. Happy to re-visit when I've put more meat on the bones. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. One source? That's not WP:NOTABLE, Peacemaker. In fact, even this article is barely notable. We should probably integrate.. -- Director (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another really close look, and I am coming to the conclusion that Operation Prijedor is not clearly part of the "Second Enemy Offensive". Have a look at the dates here [3] and the reference here to "Romanija-Biračani Operations see also Second Enemy Offensive" [4]. My view is that the reliable sources (the only non-Yugoslav scholarly ones that even use the term "Second Enemy Offensive" being Tomasevich x 2, Hoare and Shepherd) are clear that the timeframes of both Operations Southeast Croatia and Ozren fall within the "Second Enemy Offensive" timeframe and eastern Bosnia area of operations, but there is a big question about Operation Prijedor, particularly given the dates used by the Yugoslav National Committee for Historical Studies and the reference to Romanija-Biračani Operations being synonymous with the "Second Enemy Offensive". I propose merging Operations Southeast Croatia and Ozren, but leaving Operation Prijedor separate, at least in the short term. The forces used were different, the timeframe doesn't fit, the operation was conducted far from eastern Bosnia, and the purpose of Operation Prijedor was significantly different. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, we should integrate it as the Aftermath. If someone were to really insist, IMO those articles would be deleted in a flash. There was a huge number of operations during this conflict. The majority do not really meet NOTE requirements for separate articles. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I consider there were sufficient lasting effects, and depth and persistence of coverage. There are several of the WP:N(E) criteria at play here.
WP:EFFECT in two respects
1. the fact that the Germans had moved forces to the east to engage in Operation Southeast Croatia, and that move resulted in the isolation of the Prijedor garrison; and
2. the fact that Operation Prijedor was a catalyst for the Partisan liberation of Prijedor three months later, and the Kozara Offensive that followed it. The contestation in the Krajina impacted directly on the overall outcome of the war and this operation was the first real attempt by the Germans to oppose the growth of the Partisans there.
WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE in that there is in-depth coverage in Shepherd, published in 2012
Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now merged Operation Ozren into this page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we, or do we not, treat Ozren and SE Croatia as the same operation (i.e. the former as the aftermath of the latter)? That's pretty standard on Wiki, there's no need to follow German subdivisions exactly. -- Director (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same operation, they are covered in the same article because they are closely related and per the above discussion. There is absolutely no reason why we can't have the two operations in the article with separate info boxes to clarify the forces involved etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I envisioned the article as being about Operation SE Croatia, with Ozren included as its "Aftermath" since it isn't WP:NOTE on its own? I don't know of a single article of this sort that uses two infoboxes.. I think the question is: if we have one article, why do we need two infoboxes? I assure you the template is flexible enough to clearly cover both. -- Director (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. As I pointed out above, my view is that Ozren probably does meet WP:NOTE, but I'm happy with it here for now. If someone appears challenging its notability, I'll make those arguments then. I've recently improved Trio and Rosselsprung, and this one is next. Once it's up to speed I doubt there will be any issues. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its just that its kind of strange to have two infoboxes in this type of article. That is to say, its rare altogether, but I've particularly never seen a military conflict article with two infoboxes. Users generally don't like infoboxes.. "the less the better" is the rule. -- Director (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing was said by the B Class reviewer, let's see what happens when I put it up for GAN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Southeast Croatia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination within a couple of days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to post a blank GAR checklist first and proceed with specific questions below, filling out the checklist gradually.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead section

  • A section in the lead says that "many [Chetniks] withdrew across the Drina river into the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to avoid being engaged." The article prose itself does mention a withdrawal of Chetniks but it does not specify that some withdrew across Drina (i.e. to Serbia). Since the lead section should provide a summary of the information contained in the article, the main prose body should contain this piece of information too. --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, is there a way to quantify "some" (in the article prose) or are the sources too vague on this? --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • The sentence "They [Chetniks] also shared control of the towns of Rogatica, Olovo and Han Pijesak with the Partisans." is potentially very confusing. Could you please clarify if the Chetniks and Partisans controlled different parts of each of those cities, or if they controlled various parts of the general area of the cities. More importantly, did the shared control come about as a consequence of combat (causing each of them to hold onto a different part of a given city) or did they have an arrangement to do so? Were they allied at the time or in the area (in October 1942 they were definitely hostile to each other - cf. Operation Alfa)? Even though the subsequent parts of the article provide an explanation of subsequent hostility, it would be helpful to have an indication of the relation of the two specifically because of the hostilities in place during most of the war.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background section is in fact quite contrasted to the rest of the article - it is very terse, while the remainder is quite informative. It comes off as if written assuming readers to be fully aware of situation in the area in 1942, who Chetniks and Partisans were and who did they deny the large portion of eastern Bosnia to. While brevity has its virtues, it would probably be useful to quite a number of readers to have a two or three sentence paragraph preceding the existing one, explaining that the Axis invaded Yugoslavia, partitioned it into occupation zones and established puppet states and that insurgency/insurgencies sprang up. I know this might sound as a nitpicking request, but those readers navigating to the article from an article not providing sufficient context will definitely benefit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. It was a bit light on. I've beefed it up somewhat, still need to tidy up the citations, but let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph is largely fine, except for one bit: "The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population, against which many Serbs began to resist. The resistance initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions..." sentence is somewhat misleading for two reasons. It leaves an impression that 1) the resistance comprised Serbs only (I assume that in terms of Chetniks it generally did, but this was definitely not so in case of Partisans) and that 2) the resistance was focused on the racial/religious persecution of the NDH (implying that the resistance movements would be fine with the NDH were there no such persecution, which is quite improbable). I am aware that 1) is a slippery slope towards lengthy elaboration of who was the first to start uprising, which nation was the most numerous in the Partisan movement and who led the most effective armed resistance - and all that is entirely unnecessary in this article, as Yugoslav Partisans article is there to provide full coverage, so I urge a more general formulation there in order to maintain focus of the article. The problem nr. 2) is a direct consequence of 1). Therefore i propose that the following:
The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population, against which many Serbs began to resist. The resistance initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions,...
be changed to something along the lines of:
The NDH immediately implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Roma population. Armed resistance to the occupation and the NDH initially formed into two loosely-cooperating factions,...
Of course, this is just a suggestion, but I trust the latter structure is less problematic. Conceivably, Resistance during World War II could e linked from the "armed resistance" instead from "See Also" section.

Planning

  • In "The German force was assisted by NDH units including 7 infantry battalions and nine artillery batteries." I infer that the NDH units were the Croatian Home Guard. If so, I suppose it would be informative to specify that instead of the general term this early in the article. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "Vienna Line" formal/informal name of the demarcation line between the occupation zones in the NDH or a line established for the purposes of the Operation Southeast Croatia? --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Southeast Croatia

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph reads "The insurgents in the area of operations destroyed villages...". Could you clarify who the "insurgents" refers to? I assume it is refers to the Partisans only, but I'm not entirely sure if it is meant to refer to both Partisans and Chetniks. --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could some explanation of the "tight timeframe" be provided? Was the operation limited in time due to available provisions, orders or something else? --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have removed the redundant timeframe phrase, overly ambitious objectives covers it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the first instance of "Supreme Staff" could be accompanied by a modifier to make sure that the staff and the 1st Proletarian Brigade are identified as Partisan formations more clearly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ozren

  • I assume that Operation Ozren is a part of this particular article as an extension of the Operation Southeast Croatia employing the same divisions deployed in the Operation Southeast Croatia or elements thereof. Would it be wise to add a sentence saying so to avoid confusing casual readers. From the infobox placed in the section and another one at the top of the article, I see a change of the commanding officer, even though the German units were largely the same. Was Hoffman relieved of duty or was there another reason for the change? --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the issue was around swapping of commanders and the 342nd being slated to return to Russia I think. I'll check and address. No, not clear why from the text. I've made the change suggested though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the article is properly referenced, unbiased, and images/maps used are properly licensed, with suitable captions. No edit-wars appear to be in progress in the article. All major issues are covered and the coverage is focused.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are few MoS compliance issues:

  • En dashes are required in number ranges. There's at least one range requiring this type of change (infobox). En dash should also be used in compounds like "Chetnik-Partisan" where it may be replaced by to, versus, and, or between. (see: MOS:ENDASH) --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted some of them - hyphens are still used to denote compounding. A convert template was fixed - I suspect that there might have been a stray en dash there too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoS does not require repetition of wikilinks in the main prose if they're already used in the lead, but it might be helpful for readers to reiterate them at their first occurrence after the lead. This, of course is not an obstacle to GA, just a suggestion.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally try to do that, I'll go through and check.
  • Everything is fine as it is in this regard.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose a number of scare quotes: "winter quarters", "Vienna Line", defined all the following groups as "hostile";, "Igman March" - i.e. implying an alternative, non-obvious, meaning of the words or phrases. Please reconsider which of those are really justified. I trust these four are fairly straightforward, but I'm not sure about "wholly collapsed".--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Igman March does not need quotes either - it means exactly what it says it is, right? - march across [Mount] Igman?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, come to think of it, it was redundant really.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced 342nd Infantry Division (Germany) with 342nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), but haven't used the straight wikilink so as not to have the disambiguator in the text. Is that acceptable? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, that's what I meant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the following sentence: "On 9 January 1942, the 718th Infantry Division had issued orders to both its regiments which defined all the following groups as "hostile"; all non-residents and residents that had been absent from their localities until recently; all identifiable Chetniks or communists with or without weapons or ammunition; and anyone concealing, supplying or providing information to those groups.", the first semicolon should be replaced with a colon (per MoS). The remaining ones may remain semicolons (since an item contains a comma) or be replaced with commas.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bolding "Operation Ozren" in the eponymous section should not be there per MoS, as boldface is reserved for the first instance of the article title in lead section (and then only once) and possible alternative names of the subject.
  • Per above, I'm not sure whether bolding of the "Second Enemy Offensive" in the lead section is justified per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Is it a synonym for the Operation Southeast Croatia or is the operation a part of the Second Enemy Offensive? If the latter is the case, it should be in plain font (and I'd opt for that solution). Of course, inclusion of the Operation Ozren may warrant such a bolding, but I'll leave that for your judgement. I'll accept either solution, as long as the Operation Ozren is a part of this article and not split off into a new one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been some discussion of this on talk, but I am of the view that it should not be bolded. It is not a synonym for Op Southeast Croatia, as Op Ozren is also part of the "Second Enemy Offensive". I've unbolded it for now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Operation Ozren", Ozren should not be italicized. Italic face is used to add emphasis and for purposes defined by WP:ITALIC. Moreover application of the italic face in Ozren is inconsistent with normal face used for Operation Southeast Croatia. Ditto for Operation Trio.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a more general remark on the operation names, WP:MILMOS#NAME discourages use of operational codenames as article titles and prefers descriptive geographic terms if no prominent, widely-used common name exists. This is not relevant for the GA review, but I suspect it may become an issue if you decide to go to FAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been discussed at length regarding all these operations, and a decision was made to go with the German operation names as the better of two evils. The alternatives are "Nth Enemy Offensive" which are really just a "heroic" Yugoslav communist propaganda construct aimed at building the legend of Tito and the Partisans. In comparison, the German operation names are relatively neutral. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, that's irrelevant for the GAR - I just thought to point out that someone might request a change of the title to Battle of Eastern Bosnia or something like that. I, for one, certainly won't do that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round brackets enveloping the convert template in "... facing extreme temperatures (approaching −30 °C (−22 °F))." are not necessary and produce a duplicate bracket at the end of the sentence.

Well, this concludes the first run. The article is very close to GA, with relatively few sticking points remaining to be addressed. I'll place the nomination on hold for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First run comments addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the hyphens, I still haven't mastered that bit of the MOS... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I trust all GA criteria are met now, so I'm passing the nomination. Great work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks very much for the review (and the tweaking...). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Federal Yugoslavia[edit]

The infobox presents Democratic Federal Yugoslavia established in 1943 as one of participants in this conflict of January 1942. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good point, fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Partisan flag is not sourced. Are there any sources that indicate the Partisan flag depicted was in use by the Partisans at this time?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pot this is kettle, over. I will investigate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hoare (2006), p. 83-84 mentions the decisions of the Stolice conference on 26 Sep 41, and the decree of the General Staff of B-H that in Serb areas of B-H it would be a red star on a Serbian tricolour. This was most definitely a Serb (as distinct from Croatian) area. I'm going to substitute the flag icon. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I did not mention above is that this is not relevant to Tito, the 1st Proletarian Brigade or Popovic, as the 1st Brigade had a red flag with a star and hammer and sickle. Given the Partisan forces were mixed Serb and Proletarian, I have only used the Serb Partisan flag for the local commander and local detachments, which I consider a reasonable position. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody uploaded image of the red flag with a star and hammer and sickle? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge. I had a look around on Commons, but no cigar. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That means that flag used in the article is somewhat different from actual flag they used? If that is so, is it better to remove it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. The Stolice decree (which covered the whole of the Partisans and preceded this "battle"), covered flags to be used, by all formations. The overall flag for the Partisans was the Yugoslav tricolour with the red star, with subordinate ones for units in Serb and Croat areas. The 1st Proletarian Brigade was not tied to an area, but it was still part of the Partisans, so the overall Partisan flag is still directly relevant to them in the absence of a specific one for the brigade. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

“Operation Southeast Croatia” occurred in the Independent State of Croatia. Shouldn’t the actual name be used? Croatia as the name known, didn’t exist at the time. I see no hits in books for the current title. Info Box even says Independent State of Croatia. If there are no objections or rational explanations for using the current instead I will change the name then. Another option is what seems like the common and more accurate title of "Second Enemy Offensive” Being Bosnia, Croatia would be incorrect unless repainting history inadvertently. OyMosby (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the name of the operation, and nothing is being "repainted" inadvertently or otherwise. The "Second Enemy Offensive" is a Partisan construct, the current title is the name given to the operation by the Germans who initiated it (translated from the German, of course, because this is English Wikipedia), but isn't loaded from a historiographical perspective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I didn’t come across as negative or attacking. I am not insinuating foul play or conspiracies. You and I both showed concern at times with use of NDH vs Croatia because the classification of the territory as you mentioned from a historiographical stance and it being a protectorate puppet. Also being that the Partisan ”construct” title version seems most common. Hence my initial concern. But it makes sense being it was A German created event, their terminology would be used. Noted for future.
Odd they didn’t refer to it as NDH as mainland Croatia did not include Bosnia, especial not South East Bosnia. Usually they referred to NDH as “German Occupation Zones 1, 2 and 3” in their military operations documents. Perhaps just generic short hand. Militaries usually do keep things brief. This was my line of thinking anyway. The same logic used in other articles due to worries about geography in a historical sense. For example many sources use Holocaust in Croatia or Serbia but we modify the title to represent what state existed on the new border territories at the time. So assumed the same should be done here as other editors stated in the past. But again you make sense in that it what the Nazis titles it being it was there operation they created. Not historians. It seems embarrassingly obvious now haha.
Much appreciated @Peacemaker67: for explaining. Should have paid more attention to your points above. Sorry to reopen old discussions. I know you are busy. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Southeast_Croatia&oldid=1212465447"