Talk:Battle of Odžak
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic A small error
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Odžak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPOV issues
editWhat moron wrote this broken article full of POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.52.59 (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Article is based on one book of man who wasn't there and who is poet not historian. Also book name tell us all: U Odžaku se branila Hrvatska Država. He this that NDH was Croatian and that it was state, but we now know as a fact that that is not Odžak is in BiH and that NDH was Hitler puppet state. So this book cant be source for historic article. This can be article about that book, but not about historic event.--DobarSkroz (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed this independently and tagged the Mato Marčinko source. The publisher is dubious, the author was not a peer-reviewed historian - he may have been a notable person but a search for their name on http://bib.irb.hr brings up literally nothing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- This stuff has been here for seven years after being challenged, and no effort has been made to explain why it is reliable. I'm deleting it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Casualty rates and editor bias.
editI've looked at this wikipedia page a year ago. The page changed significatly in this one year, the casualties are completley different than it used to be, and over 11000 bytes of the order in the battle were deleted. So, i am thinking that the editor, Peacemaker67 is biased. And i urge real historians with unbiased sources rewrite this article, because how can partisan casualties go from 1200-10000 to 280? 93.137.83.240 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @93.137.83.240 As for the bias of author of the book, Mato Mačinko. Yes, he was of course, biased as well. But i think that there is some truth to what he was saying, especially because he was a member of the Croatian army at that time, and gave us a first hand account of what happened there. (he was on a retreat to Bleiburg). I propose editing the casualty rate similar to what it was before, and writing a more detailed account of the battle. 93.137.83.240 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you register an account so you can be accountable for all your edits, and I highly recommend you use reliable sources to edit the article. A book written by someone who was there is a primary source, and should only be used in the specific circumstances that are laid out in the no original research policy. As for your claim of bias, I actually have a track record, as distinct from a random IP, and have written featured articles about people on all sides of WWII in Yugoslavia. I have consistently found that those that claim I have a bias don't own a mirror. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67 I apologise, but i dont have any interest in editing this wikipedia page, i suggest also looking into the numbers of opposing forces. There were 20 000 partisans at most, chetniks didn't participate in the battle as far as i know because they were crushed in the battle of Lijevče field. According to what Rajkovačić said himself, there were 1850 soldiers under his command, and couple hundred of militants from surrounding villages. The battle is very poorly documented because it was purpusfly avoided in ex Yugoslavia. And today there are multiple people 93.137.132.95 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @93.137.132.95 And today there are multiple people, that wrote "historical" documents about the battle without any sources just so it can appeal to their agenda and make partisans/ustaše look like heroes. 93.137.132.95 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67 I apologise, but i dont have any interest in editing this wikipedia page, i suggest also looking into the numbers of opposing forces. There were 20 000 partisans at most, chetniks didn't participate in the battle as far as i know because they were crushed in the battle of Lijevče field. According to what Rajkovačić said himself, there were 1850 soldiers under his command, and couple hundred of militants from surrounding villages. The battle is very poorly documented because it was purpusfly avoided in ex Yugoslavia. And today there are multiple people 93.137.132.95 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you register an account so you can be accountable for all your edits, and I highly recommend you use reliable sources to edit the article. A book written by someone who was there is a primary source, and should only be used in the specific circumstances that are laid out in the no original research policy. As for your claim of bias, I actually have a track record, as distinct from a random IP, and have written featured articles about people on all sides of WWII in Yugoslavia. I have consistently found that those that claim I have a bias don't own a mirror. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A small error
editIt says "Croats" on the Nazi side, but "soldiers" for the Partisan side, even though there were many Croats in the Yugoslav Partisans. Either make both sides be "soldiers" or change "Croats" to "Ustashe" to be more specific. 86.32.56.59 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this should be changed. Governor Sheng (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Far better to use "NDH troops", as many members of the NDH forces were not Ustashas but former Home Guards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)