Talk:Schutzkorps

Unit's role is "moot"
In addition to the omission of the fall 1914 Chetnik attacks on Muslims in east Bosnia. It appears that the quote that the "Schutzkorps, auxiliary militia raised by the Austro-Hungarians, in the policy of anti-Serb repression" (on which the lead claim that the unit was created to "implement the policy of anti-Serb repression" is based) has omitted the crucial bit that the Schutzkorps's role is "moot". -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I did not know what that word means. Since there are many other sources supporting this purpose of the unit I left it out. Now I see that source actually discuss controversy. I think it is better to use Tomasevich instead.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should've better titled my section. Neither Tomasevich nor Banac claim that the unit was created to specifically for the implementation of anti-Serb activity. Tomasevich says that it "became known", as in it gained a reputation, for such activity and Banac says the "the role of the Schutzkorps, auxiliary militia raised by the Austro-Hungarians, in the policy of anti-Serb repression is moot". So to say they "were [an] auxiliary militia established [...] to implement the policy of anti-Serb repression" is misleading. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should've better worded my reply. I did not propose to use Tomasevich to support the same assertion but to use his text as the source for the text of the lede, instead of polemics presented by Banac. The text you added actually proves that my proposal was good. It is wrong to assert Schutzkorps were established (in Summer) to retaliate for what Serbian Chetniks did in fall 1914.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the unit's purpose, I've thus far found Vucinich, though writing in an autobiographical perspective, who says it was created to "hunt down and arrest Serbs accused of collaboration with the enemy during the war." Something among those lines could be used. I see nothing in the sources about it being established in the summer while I do see Tomasevich refer to it as a "wartime militia", but admittedly the current addition is hasty and needs incorporating in the main part of the article. I also note "frequent battles" were held between the Chetniks and Schutzkorps. I have to point out that the referencing in this article is a bit odd as you have the correct pages, but cite quotes that apply to one statement not to the next. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I see Dedijer, whose use of the word "scum" I thought was unscholarly, was quoting Hrvatska from July 3, 1914. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many authors who use similar terms which are of course unscholarly and unencyclopedic. I will try take care about the references within a couple of days at the latest.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've revised the lead for now. What do you think? Also can we agree on using the SFN format for refs? -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for SFN format because I will take care about harv ref format within a couple of days.
 * I don't think that first sentence corresponds what sources say. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictures used
Terrible as they are indeed, they appear to depict actions carried out by Austro-Hungarian troops and not the Schutzkorps specifically. Their relevance for this article may thus be questioned. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Referenced assertion says "... execution of 460 citizens of Serb ethnicity in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the beginning of the World War I heavily relied on Schutzkorps".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Affirmative, but still, there is no evidence to conclude that the soldiers in the pictures decidedly were members of the Schutzkorps (they probably were but we cannot be certain unless sourced). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 19:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That kind of conclusion does not exist in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In such case why should they be considered relevant? The pictures, ambiguous as they are, should be moved to a more general article touching upon the persecution of Serbs in Austria-Hungary. Hypothetically, one wouldn't present crimes committed by the Schutzstaffel to be those of the Sturmabteilung by including them into that article even if both paramilitary groups served under the same Nazi Party. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 19:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they present execution of citizens of Serb ethnicity which "... heavily relied on Schutzkorps".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an article about Schutzkorps that uses the same image (although a crop, and of lower quality than the scan I made): http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/aktuelno.293.html:471733-Planovi-Austrougarske-Za-Srbe-logori-i-odredi-smrti - Anonimski (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anonimski. Thank you, but a local news tabloid can hardly be considered a reliable source, also, it appears to variably discuss crimes committed by the Schutzkorps and Austro-Hungarian authorities in general. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 00:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the caption now, taking the presented issues into consideration. - Anonimski (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert
User:Praxis Icosahedron, "a fact according to Banac", is the very reason why I put the "...have been argued to..." formulation there in the first place. Or is there more information about the retaliation aspect of the attacks? - Anonimski (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know actually, but Banac is a RS and he certainly seems to present the chetnik attacks as a factual pretext. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 13:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Three-fingered cross
There is such sentence in the article: "The Schutzkorps shouted anti-Serb slogans and songs, such as "There is no three-fingered cross", while committing their crimes." and words "three-fingered" carry a link to another article about serbian three-fingered salut - this is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-finger_salute_(Serbian). But words "three-fingered cross" mean not a salut gesture (say hello and show 3 fingers), but religious gesture in the Christian Orthodox Church. Serbs, Russians, Romanians, Greeks make three-fingered crossing when they pray or see a church. I think, that it is a mistake - that link in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.126.24 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, linked to Sign_of_the_cross instead. - Anonimski (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are biased
The sources used in the article, especially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzkorps#cite_note-Velikonja_2003_141-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzkorps#cite_note-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzkorps#cite_note-4

The articles are clearly biased and do not inform the user on the history or use of the unit, using language such as: Officially, they were some kind of auxiliary gendarmerie, while in reality they conducted illegal repressive activities