Talk:Kosta Pećanac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleKosta Pećanac is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 8, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 2, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 20, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Photo with dog[edit]

The photograph with the dog is not appropriately licensed. This was established during recent reviews. Please look at the reviews and fix the licensing BEFORE adding such photographs to articles, particularly those already at GA or better. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I misunderstoo your comment (diff) When you mentioned "Pecanac, great photo of him and his dog got deleted" I thought you refereed to some other image which was actually deleted, not just removed from the article. After more careful reading of the A review I understand what has happened. Regards. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing details[edit]

Tim Judah says in The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (page 117) that Pećanac had 13,400 Chetniks under his command by May 1942. Misha Glenny also points out in The Balkans, 1804-1999: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers (page 410) that Pećanac was present (as a member of parliament?) the night that Stjepan Radić was assassinated and that just before the shooting he was accused of ordering a massacre of 200 Muslims in 1921 by Croatian deputy Ivan Pernar. This information seems to be missing from the article. Would anyone have any concerns about it being included? 23 editor (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of using Glenny (I don't believe he is an academic, I know he used to be a journalist), but I'm relatively relaxed about inclusion if it can be corroborated. The Glenny books I have aren't footnoted, is this one? Might help with corroboration or provide a better quality source. But the Judah stuff is fine by me. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles say that it is Tim Judah who used to be journalist while Misha Glenny is a visiting professor at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute, engaged in higher education and research.. I don't know much about Glenny, but I agree that assertions based on Judah's works should be corroborated before inclusion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't agreeing with anyone. And we don't use WP as a reference for anything. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that 23 editor added information that Pećanac had 13,400 Chetniks under his command (dif) although he has not provided any other source to confirm this assertion per discussion here.
  • Tomasevich, Jozo (1 January 1975). The Chetniks. Stanford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9. The combined strength of both types of Chetnik units amounted on May 15, 1942, to 13,400 men, organized into 78 separate
  • I expect 23 editor to revert themselves.  Done
  • @Peacemaker67: You clearly stated that the condition to include Judah is "if it can be corroborated". That is what I agreed about with you. Why did you write "You aren't agreeing with anyone."?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that work of author who is not academic but used to be journalist can be included "if it can be corroborated". Taking in consideration numerous issues with Judah's works, such as the flaw discovered here, I fully agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just making stuff up. I supported the inclusion of the Judah material as it stood, but noted I don't have a copy to refer to. I supported the inclusion of the Glenny material if it could be corroborated. No reading of my comment could come up with your version of what I said. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@23 editor: I suggest you check the full context of what Judah says in that passage of Judah, as I do not have a copy to refer to. Tomasevich 1975 p. 111 contradicts what you have written above, as it says that was the total number of Chetniks of DM and KP, not just KP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it all together because he appears to be referring to the strength of the Russian Corps and KP's Chetniks combined. 23 editor (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear (after Ad's apparent misunderstanding above), I'm happy for the Glenny material to be included, if it can be corroborated. I actually do have a copy of that book, and it is not really scholarly, more popular history. Impressive bibliography but sparse and very brief footnoting, published by Penguin. However, it is not a extraordinary claim, so with corroboration it should be fine. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are both welcome. I am glad I helped to resolve some issues of another FA Chetnik article.
  • Thanks Peacemaker67 for the clarification of your position. It is now clear that you believe that:
    • Glenny, who is academic, has to be corroborated. You have a copy of his book and you don't find it scholarly.
    • Judah does not have to be corroborated although you don't have a copy of his book and although he is not academic, used to be journalist and was apparently wrong in this case.
  • You are, of course, entitled to have your opinion whatever is the logic behind it. I only object here to any eventual future attempt to present this discussion as some kind of consensus that Judah does not have to be corroborated, contrary to Glenny. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: There were no issues with the article itself. There were issues with my understanding of what Judah was trying to say, hence my edit. No, Judah was not "wrong". I misunderstood what he wrote. 23 editor (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. This discussion is not about your understanding but about your editing. With this edit (dif) you added factually incorrect information that Pećanac had 13,400 Chetniks under his command, although you have not provided any other source to confirm this assertion per discussion here. I noticed this issue, pointed to it, presented reliable source that refutes this factually incorrect assertion and politely asked you to revert yourself. Thank you for reverting yourself and removing both factually incorrect assertion and Judah as source (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad, what you believe this discussion has resolved or what you think I believe are both entirely immaterial to me. You are the king of misrepresentation. 23 apparently has access to Judah and was able to check Judah's text (published by Yale University no less) against what he had added to the article regarding the number of Pecanac Chetniks at one point in time. It appears to me, based on 23's response above, that 23 had in fact not accurately reflected the text of Judah with his edits. He has rightly corrected that error. The above discussion and 23's comments appear to indicate that 23 (not Judah) was wrong. Judah apparently was referring to a combination of Chetniks and other troops. If you can't get that from the above discussion, you have some serious problems. So far as Glenny is concerned, while Glenny himself may be an academic, the text concerned is not scholarly, it is popular history, and it is even described as such in a review inside the front cover of the edition I own. It has sparse and very brief footnoting, and is published by Penguin. A comparison between the reliability of the two texts (assuming that was necessary, which it isn't) should include the author, the work and the publishing house. So far as I am concerned, this book by Glenny needs corroboration. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glenny attributes the account of Račić's assassination to Ferdo Čulinović, Jugoslavija između dva rata, Zagreb, 1961, vol. I, pp. 525–7. My copy does have Glenny using footnotes and has an extensive bibliography. 23 editor (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My copy has some footnotes, they are just very sparse and brief. I acknowledged the extensive bibliography in my comments above. Ferdo Čulinović seems ok to me, reasonably well-cited in western-published works in the 60's and 70's, although a communist era historian. On that basis I am happy for his account of Pecanac being present at Račić's assassination. You can go ahead as far as I am concerned. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosta Pećanac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosta_Pećanac&oldid=1207923394"