Talk:Case Black

message: Croatia was part of Yugoslavia at the time and didn't participate in the battle as a separate combatant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat Croatia? 

message: Churchill and Roosevelt didn't recognize them until November (personally, I see this as deliberate nitpicking o your part), but other Allied powers such as the USSR did. It is generally accepted that world war 2 had two, not three sides. If one was not the Axis, and was actually fighting against them, he logically belonged to the other side. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such simplifications do not hold water. Partisans also fought against "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", which was a recognized Allied force.--Thewanderer (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it was recognized as such, but it's obvious that it wasn't. --PrimEviL 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, unfortunately we do not base verifiability on your opinions.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allies 

message: 30000 axis casualties and 6000 allied ^^ i guess all writers of these funny arcticels are from this area , arent they ? "the skilled yugoslavien soldiers" ... can u stop writing such bullshit figures ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: if someone overseeing the article could plese correct this one, as they were not ss but regular wermacht volunteers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_%28Croat%29_Infantry_Division Kolpo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.197.47 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  369th divison (SS- no way!) 

message: Following agreement here (Talk:Battle_of_Kozara), I am moving this article to 'Case Black' per the German name. Please read the discussion for reasoning. The scope of the article will not change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Case Black 

message: File:Chetniks captured in Stolac, 1943.jpg|Chetniks captured in Stolac
File:Chetniks disarmed in Herzegovina, May 1943.jpg|Chetniks being disarmed in Herzegovina
File:Chetniks captured in Herzegovina, May 1943.jpg|Capture of Chetniks in Herzegovina
File:Chetniks captured by Germans in May 1943 in Kalinovik.jpg|Captured Chetniks in Kalinovik
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: be WP:BOLD. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some images of from in this operation 

message: It would be good if someone would edit :File:Map Operation Schwarz.JPG and remove the text "Bosniac-Croat Federation" and "Republika Srpska" because they're anachronistic. A note should also be added to explain that the borders are of the Socialist Republics established soon after (but probably not as early as 1943). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support using a map with current borders. It doesn't provide proper context and is anachronistic. Any map used on this article should show the NDH borders. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the map up as best I could (it actually labeled Bosnia and Herzegivina "NDH"), but I myself am indifferent as to whether we use it in the infobox or not. I wouldn't remove it from the article, though. -- Director (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: ----9.1.2014  When discussing a war, please provide some lead up or reason. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyids (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for war 

message: This comment has been largely copied from my talk page, as the editor involved has continued to revert my removal of it from this article, and has not engaged in discussion on this talk page or responded on my talk page.
 
Vojska.net is basically a gaming site, not "a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:RS. It does have some "military history" information on it, but of the many pages on vojska.net regarding Yugoslav/NDH/German etc orders of battle, only a very small percentage even contain information about where the information on that page is drawn from (ie the sources it uses). There is no footnoting at all. The author of vojska.net does not claim any academic qualifications (so far as I am aware). The lack of sources, footnoting, academic qualifications of the author, or any indication that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is reliable are all reasons why it does not meet WP:RS. This cannot be dismissed as "my POV", it is an assertion based on the observable facts regarding the website, and if an editor thinks it is reliable, then a contrary view would need to show that the site was in fact reliable and had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. No such assertion has been made, merely a suggestion that we should "compromise". The reason that "fanboi" websites are not considered reliable is because...they don't meet WP standards for sources. In that respect vojska.net is no different to axishistory and other similar websites, which really fall into the "fanboi" category. It would be far more suitable to use a primary source like German records, than a "fanboi" website. At least those primary records are part of a national archival collection. In the case of casualty figures, which vary wildly between the German records and the Partisan ones, in-line attribution is appropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 04:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have produced is your unsupported opinion, and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. I, on the other hand, have pointed to specific reasons that vojska.net does not meet a core WP policy, WP:RS. You have not made any comments refuting anything I have said about the reliability of vojska.net. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vojska.net is not a reliable source 

message: It says casualties were 2/3 killed and wounded, but then says up to 7543 killed.
Then in the bulk text, it states "In total there were 7,543 partisan casualties, more than a third of the initial force."
1) So were there 7543 killed, no wounded or 7543 casualties?
2) And if it was 7543 casualties, this means there were 1/3 killed wounded rather than 2/3 killed and wounded.
I have no source information available, so I don't want to change this without really understanding what the truth is.
But as it is written now, doesn't really gel together.
I propose someone who has access to the source info to please clarify and update.  Fscb06 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Casualties