Talk:Lim-Sandžak Chetnik Detachment

Verification
The material about the involvement of this detachment in Operation Trio needs verification, they may have participated in the Third Enemy Offensive, but not Operation Trio. They are not the same thing. Also, Djurisic was captured before Case Black began. This is a blatant attempt to create a POVFORK in respect of issues that have been refuted at other articles. Please provide translated quotes from all tagged references. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Yugoslav historiography uses term the Third enemy offensive instead of operation Trio. Djurisic was captured in the initial phase of the Case Black, some of his men were also captured in the initial phase, while some of them were captured in the next phases. This is already discussed at relevant talkpages. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The scope of the Operation Trio article is only part of the scope of the Third Enemy Offensive. The Third Enemy Offensive has been split for very valid reasons, including the timeframe, troops involved, geographical scope and the fact that it is already complex enough. What you need to (red)link to is the Italian-led Herzegovina offensive (tentative title) which involved Chetniks (in fact I believe they did most of the fighting). Burgwyn clearly explains the difference here. Operation Trio did not involve Chetniks fighting alongside the Axis, they just melted away. The non-involvement of Chetniks was a point that was agreed upon by the Axis leaders at Abbazia, the Germans and NDH (Laxa) insisted on it. That is a sourced fact, not my opinion. The Italians later reneged on that arrangement for subsequent operations that formed part of the Third Enemy Offensive, but it was only for operations not involving the Germans that followed Operation Trio. If you don't understand this, you just haven't read enough about it. You have linked this unit to an article for an operation in which they did not participate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing irrelevant in my comment. The link you presented is unable for viewing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The arrangements for the two operations are verifiable, whether you can view the link or not. Hehn, Hoare, any number of academics explain the differences. If you don't understand the differences between the two operations, one a German-NDH one with minor Italian involvement, and the other run by the Italians in their occupation zones using mainly Chetniks, that really isn't my problem. Conflating the operation that this unit participated in with Operation Trio is just factually wrong, they weren't involved in Trio. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you please be so kind to provide a quote which directly confirms that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Firstly, Burgwyn Mussolini Warlord: Failed Dreams of Empire, 1940-1943 p. 242, after explaining what happened during the first phase of Trio, "Trio II, launched on 7 May, targeted partisan strongholds at Foca and Kalinivik. Despite the many fissures and mutual recriminations, the Axis armies wound up the last stage of the campaign by taking possession of Foca on 10 May. The Germans and Croats cleared the partisans from eastern Bosnia to the demarcation line, and the Italians, with the help of their Chetnik allies, swept the partisans out of Herzegovina, which was not included in Trio." And Pavlowitch Hitler's New Disorder p. 119, "In Herzegovina, not encompassed by Trio, Italian troops operation in conjunction with chetniks, fully exploiting resentment against the partisans." Obviously, if Herzegovina was not included in Trio, then the Third Enemy Offensive was not just Trio. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the quotes you presented mentions Third Enemy Offensife nor directly confirm that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive). You might be right here, but until now you did not present sources which support your position. Even if Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio you did not present sources which confirm your position that Chetniks did not participate in this operation. You base your position solely on the fact that they also participated in another (Herzegovina) operation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try this. Do you agree that the quotes show that the Italian-Chetnik operations in Herzegovina were not part of Operation Trio? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether operations in Herzegovina were part of the Operation Trio or not is irrelevant here. I presented (diff) multiple sources which confirm that Chetniks from Sandžak participated in the Third Enemy Offensive by attacking communst forces at Čajniče which is in eastern Bosnia, where they supported Italian forces together with Sandžak Muslim militia and attacked communist in Eastern Bosnia (at Čajniče, Goražde and Višegrad toward Rogatica) since 22 April. You based your position on the fallacious proposition that Chetniks did not participate in Operation Trio because they also participated in another (Herzegovina) operation which was maybe not included into Operation Trio.
 * The burden is on you, not on me. You claim that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive). Based on this claim, you concluded that Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim militia did not participate in Operation Trio because they participated Herzegovina offensive. You are maybe right here, but if you want your position to be added to wikipedia articles you should present sources that directly support your claim and conclusion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually no, you are the one that linked this unit to Operation Trio. The burden is on you to show that they did. I say they didn't, and have already talked about the Abbazia discussions where the Germans and NDH refused to allow the Chetniks to be involved in Operation Trio. Hopefully you are familiar with the Abbazia discussions, but if not, read the Operation Trio article, it is reliably cited. Either prove they did or drop the stick. You can delete the "Herzegovina offensive" from this article so far as I care, but you have provided exactly zero sources that show that this unit participated in Operation Trio. Until you do, don't re-add it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, the burden is on you . It is you who replaced Operation Trio with Herzegovina Operation (diff). Your position was based on your claim that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive) and your conclusion that Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim militia did not participate in Operation Trio because they participated Herzegovina offensive. Will you please be so kind to present sources that directly support your claim and conclusion?
 * Yes I did read Operation Trio article. It says that "Operation Trio was followed up by the joint Italian-Chetnik Herzegovina Offensive against Partisan detachments". Will you please be so kind to explain how can actions of Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim Militia in Eastern Bosnia that started at 22 April 1942 be part of the Italian-Chetnik Herzegovina Offensive that followed Operation Trio (20 April and 13 May 1942)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the Herzegovina offensive, as I have not yet looked into it, and I don't know when it began or ended. I know what the sources say about Operation Trio though. So far as I am concerned, the point is moot. You decide what to put in the infobox, but if you put Operation Trio, be sure to provide sources to support it, not some reference to the Third Enemy Offensive claiming it is equal to Trio. Any discussion with you goes round and round in circles, and I refuse to waste any more of my time on this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No you haven't deleted it. Here is current version of the article. It still says Herzegovina offensive in the body of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, forgot to delete it from the body as well as the infobox. Довиђења! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, now you deleted it (diff).
 * I agree that our discussions very often go round and round in circles. This discussion shows why:
 * 27 minutes after I created this article you rushed to tag bomb it (diff)
 * then you added Herzegovina offensive assertion (diff) and made other corrections in the text without removing the tags.
 * I asked you multiple times to present sources for your position (diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3)
 * Did you present sources for your position? No.
 * Did you address the explanation about Chetniks attacking communist forces in eastern Bosnia, not Herzegovina? No.
 * Did you address the explanation that Chetniks' attacks began on 22 April, which is not after Operation Trio? No.
 * Only when I insisted on sources you admitted that you "have not yet looked into it" and that you "don't know when it began or ended" (diff).
 * Then you removed your Herzegovina offensive assertion (diff) and added Third Enemy offensive instead, leaving your tags in the article
 * To disguise your fiasco here you blamed me for unproductive discussion and stated that you "refuse to waste any more time on this". What about time that I lost because of your disruption here?
 * Will you please be so kind to either explain why did you tag your assertions or to remove tags from the article? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag regarding Operation Trio, as the article no longer mentions Operation Trio, it now mentions the Third Enemy Offensive, because I replaced unsourced reference to Operation Trio that you added to the article with a reference to the Third Enemy Offensive, which the citation apparently supports. You live in your own little world, don't you? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You left the tags in the article after you changed the text to reflect your position (diff) and removed the tags only after I asked you to remove it. Instead to apologize for your disruption you wrote another snide comment to me ("You live in your own little world, don't you?") --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't added absolute nonsense to this article, then immediately brought the article to my attention by linking to it in a discussion elsewhere, I would not have even known about it, let alone tagged it or commented here. Where I come from, that is called "baiting the bear". You continue to waste my time with unproductive, poorly sourced rubbish that adds little to en WP. When you actually develop an article to a high standard, assessed by your peers, then you feel free to get back to me about my work. I am sick to death of your twisting of sources to suit your POV, constant carping about mouse shit, harassment via my talk page, obtuse nonsense in discussions and complete failure to apply logic. I am posting on your talk page a warning not to ever post on my talk page ever again. If you do, I will be taking you to ANI for wikihounding. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be so kind to stop misusing articles' talkpages to disseminate a false narrative about my conduct. That is not what articles' talkpages are for. This section serves to discuss your "verification" tags. Don't blame me for your "Herzegovina Offensive" fiasco and because you left unjustified tags in this article.
 * With your uncivil comments you discouraged me from further editing here. This will be my last comment in this article. This page is removed from my watchlist. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for any editors reading this wall of text (in Ad's absence), the second and last phase of Operation Trio ended on 13 May with the capture of Foca. This unit was created at the end of June. It therefore cannot have participated in Operation Trio, despite Ad's convoluted argumentation above. I am investigating a source that indicates some Sandzak Chetniks were operating as auxiliaries for the Italian Pusteria division during Trio, but these must have been the predecessors to this detachment given the timeframe. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion!?
This is pretty ridiculous. Dude, you need to stick your head in a bucket of ice. This personal feud is starting to impair your judgment.Zvonko (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right. PRODing this article was a mistake. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)