From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chetnik movement ended in 1946?[edit]

I don't believe saying the movement completely ended in 1946 in the infobox simply due to the death of Draža Mihailović and SFRY repression is accurate. Momčilo Đujić carried on the movement with the Ravna Gora Movement of Serbian Chetniks in the United States and later participated in the Yugoslav Wars by funding Croatian Serbs, "passing the torch" by proclaiming Vojislav Šešelj a Chetnik vojvoda (also ordering him to commit ethnic cleansing), and even received the Order of the Star of Karađorđe from Biljana Plavšić. You have scholars Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop saying "Chetnik groups made something of a comeback" and a "reappearance" after Yugoslav dissolution with Chetnik forces participating in Vukovar and Srebrenica, specifically noting the "Chetnik unit" of the Scorpions. They state Željko Ražnatović was a "self-styled Chetnik" that led the "Chetnik force" of the Serb Volunteer Guard. [1] Historian Sabrina P. Ramet states Šešelj lead the Serbian Chetnik Movement [2] and journalist Paul Hockenos describes him as "a man whose killer commando units operating in Croatia and Bosnia carried on the very worst of the Chetnik tradition" [3]. --PRODUCER (TALK) 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The scope of this article should be extended to include post-1946 Chetnik political movement as well. Same goes for Ustaše. Of course, it should be clearly emphasized that it is political movement differentiated from military organizations which existed until 1946.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to define military units that participated in Yugoslav wars as Chetniks or Ustaše although some of them carried on their very worst tradition.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If those paramilitary units in the Yugoslav wars declared themselves as Chetniks then they are Chetniks. It's not as if there is a Chetnik "code of honor" which needs to be fulfilled in order for someone to be considered a worthy Chetnik. It is all about ideology and self-perception. The White Eagles (paramilitary) are by all means Chetniks. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Advancely self-refutated (diff) "its all about self-perception" position (diff). The most interesting edits I have ever seen on wikipedia. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As you frequently invoke yourself, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is irrelevant. Also, there is a consensus from earlier for Andric and Selimovic to not describe them as Serb simply because of their politicized self-declaration. Your little revenge edit will be reverted. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
My bad, I had the impression you undid my revert. Anyhow, I am leaving this discussion on account of you being too emotionally invested.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Any change as to the dates when the Chetnik movement was active must immediately reflect on the Ustaše, as well. After all Ante Pavelić established the Croatian Liberation Movement in exile in order to keep Ustaše ideals as well as the movement itself alive. The Ustaše had enormous support throughout the Croat diaspora and an "alternative Ustaša organization" called Otpor was established by Vjekoslav Luburić. (see Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritarian Rulers of South Eastern Europe )
During the 1990s, some Croatian paramilitaries used Ustaše insignia and symbols while some Serb paramilitaries began using Chetnik ones. Both groups derogatorily referred to one another as Ustaše and Chetniks. (see Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam ) Furthermore, the Croatian Party of Rights and their paramilitaries claimed to have Ustaše heritage. (see The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives 23 editor (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the events from the 1990s have more to do with the "Legacy" section, rather than making some extensive inclusion of the events from the 1990s in the article. But I recognise this is a good question that producer opened. FkpCascais (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This article is not only about DM Chetniks, or WWI Chetniks or Balkan Wars Chetniks, or 1904-1913 Chetniks, or post WWII Chetniks. This article is a summary article which includes all of them, and none of them belongs to the legacy.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@23 editor: Yes you had the Ustaše movements abroad among the diaspora with HOP and HRB, and also the HOS in the Yugoslav Wars. Additions there would be appropriate too. Hockenos' book is dedicated to that sort of thing. To imply these movements disappeared immediately off the face of the earth after WWII as the current articles do is incredibly misleading. @Antidiskriminator: Me or you personally defining someone or something "Chetnik" would be "wrong", but if you have reliable sources like Totten and Bartrop that themselves carefully and specifically "define military units that participated in Yugoslav wars as Chetniks or Ustaše" then that's perfectly in line with Wikipedia's requirements. The scholars go into detail about the Chetnik movement and the resurgence in individuals and units that followed dissolution indeed this is from a specific entry dedicated to the Chetniks in the Dictionary of Genocide. I can understand the hesitation given the commonness at the time by warring parties to sometimes refer to all Serb forces as Chetniks or all Croat forces as Ustaše, but I don't think anyone is seriously disputing the individuals and units mentioned above especially given the quality of sources. @FkpCascais: AD pointed out correctly the article deals with all Chetniks though primarily WWII ones given they were most relevant at that period. --PRODUCER (TALK) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: I did not point that primary topic of this article are WWII Chetniks, nor I said they are most relevant.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a continuation of the "Chetnik" name in units of Serbian paramilitaries during the 1990's. There has also been a Chetnik political movement from 1904 to the present day. Djujic and Seselj are just the tip of the iceberg. It is well sourced from people like Ramet. The idea that Chetniks as a movement (both militarily and politically) stopped existing in 1946 is completely at odds with the reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are implying that a few eighty year old men in California calling themselves Chetniks is evidence of an active Chetnik movement you are greatly mistaken. Đujić died in 1999 and took away Šešelj's title of vojvoda before his death, meaning that even if there was a Chetnik movement today it would have no real "leader". Paramilitary leaders from the 1990s have been sent off to the Hague or have been killed, and those that haven't (i.e. Tomislav Nikolić) have stopped calling themselves Chetniks and have publicly expressed a desire for peace in the Balkans. I haven't come across any source which states that the Ustaše and Chetniks are still active. Saying that they are serves no purpose other than to fuel Balkan paranoia. 23 editor (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I implied nothing of the sort. There were Chetniks in the 1990's, and therefore 1946 is not the correct end date. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Connecting Milosevic's assumption of power with Chetniks' comeback and "Chetnik insurrection" directly contradicts to the real events. After Milosevic's assumption of power there were other opposition parties that promoted Chetnik ideology, while Milosevic was pro-partisan. Referring to events as "Chetnik insurrection in 1990-1992" also directly contradicts to the real events. Some Slovenians and Muslims did participate in Chetnik forces during WWII but to refer to their actions of 1990-1992 as Chetnik insurrection is completely wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Scholars Totten, Bartrop, and Ramet are doing the "connecting". The bit about a "Chetnik insurrection in 1990-1992" is lifted verbatim from Ramet. I don't know where Slovenes and Muslims fit into this. --PRODUCER (TALK) 10:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I googled this term and only result was Ramet. I am surprised she used derogatory term to refer to Serbs who lived in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, because term Chetnik was used as derogatory term for them by the sides who struggled against them. That is additional reason to be extra cautious with Ramet's works in case of exceptional disputable claims.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a simplification of what Ramet says, in particular on p. 419. What she says (inter alia) is "The Serbian nationalist program... represented a revival of the Chetnik dream", and "It is not without significance that many Serb nationalists chose to call themselves "Chetniks". If we bear this in mind, and bear in mind also the fact that many Serbs were completely opposed to this self-declared "Chetnik" program, it will prove to be more useful, at least some of the time, to refer to the Serb nationalists as "Chetniks", rather than as "Serbs"." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The more you defend Ramet's work the more you undermine its reliability. There is an ocean of sources that explain that term Chetniks was derogatory term for Serbs during Yugoslav wars. Although we disagree here I don't see a particular reason to continue this discussion until there is an issue with particular exceptional disputable assertion connected with "Serbian politics, history, art, culture, religion and mentality" which is supported primary by Ramet's work. Therefore this would be my last comment in this discussion here for now. Just to clarify my position about post-1946 Chetniks: The scope of this article should be extended to include post-1946 Chetnik political movement as well.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also believe the article should include right up to the 90's at the very least. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion or change: self potrayal as Chetnik doesn`t mean anything. None of the mentions beyond Djuisic has no root in Chetnick movement, up to volunteers in Ukraine. If someone calls itself "modern white knights" should they be in chivarly section? Arkan (or Republican Seselj) and many paramilitaries, surely have anything to do with 1941-1945.

Maybe some modern (ab)use section should be added.

It also indicative that Ustase section has no such thing, even official Croatian state units and state itself had heavier use of ustase symbols, erecting monuments to Ustase regime participants, commemorating Blaiburg repatriations etc. (which is more likely to be try of state continuation then just some paramilitaries) Rasvoja (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

On the introdcutory section last edit/Professor Sabrina Ramet's book[edit]

In regard to one of the last edits done in the introductory paragraph of the article: there has been a couple of discussions on the biased nature of the book "The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005" that has been cited for that occasion. There were discussions on the subjective nature of the book. I personally read that book, translated into one Romance language, and am only thus taking a privillege to call the source biased and not useful for an encyclopedia. In other words, would eventually restore the claim I deleted, but with some better source or proof. 2A00:C440:20:27E:248A:3A23:609F:A121 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia does not work like that. Please acquaint yourself with what constitutes a reliable source and do not edit war. Your personal feelings about the source are utterly irrelevant. Removing it because you personally don't like it and calling it "fictitious" and "biased" does not flow. --PRODUCER (TALK) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Ramet is an acclaimed professor whereas you appear to be some random guy frustrated over the fact that reality doesn't correspond to your emotions. If you have authoritative sources which bring Ramet's work into question, please cite them, otherwise don't disrupt the article. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I was not particularly concerned about works of Ramet until one editor recently in the discussion about work of Owen Pearson stated that Sabrina Ramet praised his work "glowing about it". If it is really true that Ramet praised works of Ower Pearson it might be good to investigate reliability of her works and avoid its extensive usage, especially to support disputable assertions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Aleksa Đilas criticized work of Ramet as non-neutral toward Serbian politics and history, art and culture, religion and mentality - link --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Eric D. Gordy (Clark University) described her as one of most contraversial scholars of eastern Europe with "a wide body of work which ranges from the solidly empirical to the adventurously speculative" - link--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hate to be Captain Obvious here, but only blocked people/sockpuppeteers have user names like "2A00:C440:20:27E:248A:3A23:609F:A121"...

P.s. Ramet is a reliable source. -- Director (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree with both, though extra cautious is necessary with exceptional disputable claims.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with both, Ramet is a leading scholar on the Balkans, she is most certainly reliable. Djilas himself is of course not a third party source (unlike Ramet), and it is he that should be used with caution, along with any other writers with axes to grind. This is just one more transparent round in the never-ending battle by some editors to get academics they don't like removed from WP or articles they care about. And yes, I am referring to you, Ad. Cohen, Pearson and now Ramet. Next Tomasevich, Hoare, who knows... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote I agree with both as reply to DIREKTOR's statement, I meant with both of his points: that Ramet is reliable and that only blocked people/sockpuppeteers have user names like "2A00:C440:20:27E:248A:3A23:609F:A121". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
To the user named PRODUCER: the entry was not removed because the person who removed it didn't like it, but because the source is not reliable. How can something that is biased be considered as a good source material for any kind of encyclopedia?
To the user named Peacemaker67:I'm afraid you are wrong, Prof. Sabrina Ramet indeed is a third party source, maybe not equally as Djilas, but she still is a person who lived in ex-Yugoslavia, is of ex-Yugoslavian origin and has had contacts with politicians from these countries
To the user named Antidiskriminator:This IP address belongs to a library, and a multitude of persons use it. So this IP at least cannot be linked to one single user only. 2A00:C440:20:27E:B54A:E9AE:E3A4:79B8 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Is that right now? Libraries have their own Wikipedia accounts, and so many that they need these complex codes? How about you take a hike Mr. "Romance language" sockpuppeteer? Another sock from Italy.. as if I didn't see enough of that in my day.
This reeks of Brunodam or one of his cohorts, fellas. -- Director (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I did read somewhere (it was a football related debate), that some libraries have that sort of accounts. FkpCascais (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Either way, its suspicious. Mr. 2A00:C440:20:27E:B54A:E9AE:E3A4:79B8, please, if you're able, create an account of your own if you wish to participate in these sort of controversial discussions. -- Director (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ramet view (diff) is way too biased and simplicist as to be in the lede. Seems more like campaigning rather than real scholar conclusion. I agree with the complain. FkpCascais (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

" it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that " polemics part is non-encyclopedic and certainly does not belong to the lede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the Ramet material to the lead while it is discussed here. I'm not having some Johnny-come-lately being used as a stalking horse for POV-pushing. Edit warring behaviour will be reported. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I would submit that any opposition to a specific view expressed by Ramet will need to be supported by explicit opposition in that regard by other reliable sources. Not by some general "I don't like Ramet" statements. Ramet's reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and she is a major scholar of this subject, of that there is little doubt. -- Director (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC) -- Director (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of the Ramet quote in the lede? It's a summary statement that, so far as I can tell, sums up what the previous sentences already say in our own words. Do we need Ramet's words to sum up ourselves?
Both the Chetniks' political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented.
Yup. Our article does just that, so why should we quote Ramet to say so?
[I]t is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state.
This is probable the most original part of the Ramet quote, but also the least careful part of an otherwise careful statement. She carefully qualifies when ("beginning in 1944"), with whom (Italians, Germans, Ustaša) and to what extant ("portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović") the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis, but here she could be suggesting that the Chetniks were doing nothing but "attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state", which is a bit simplistic. (There is a different, more charitable reading of this ambiguous statement, but the ambiguity itself is a mark against it.)
which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia.
Again, seems to sum up what we have voluminously documented. So what is the purpose of this extensive quotation? We can sum it up ourselves just as well. In fact, we already do. Ramet is a reliable source, but sources are best used for facts or opinions. In this case, we are sourcing a statement that sums up what has been documented—even though we ourselves have documented it! I'd remove it from the lede or replace it with out own words. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I would object to its removal until a replacement has been agreed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyobody objects removal of only " it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that " part because it is polemic, non-encyclopedic and as a such does not belong to the lede?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Units of WWII Chetniks[edit]

While I was working on one article I noticed there were many important military units of Chetniks organized on some kind of territorial principle, i.e. Jadar, Cer detachments.... I think this article should present military organization of Chetnik forces.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for them, go right ahead. But that would be just one more reason the WWII Chetniks should be split off as a content fork from this summary article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that at this point it is probably best to split the article, but do you think it should be all WWII Chetniks in another article, or just the Mihailovic Chetniks? I have no opinion on what would work best. Srnec (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Srnec: Sorry, I must have lost interest in an interminable discussion above. I doubt we would get consensus for it, and Pecanac's Chetniks already have their own article, so I would only want to split off DM's Chetniks, leaving this as the summary article for Chetniks in general. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-protection militia[edit]


The text of the article says:

  • Pavle Đurišić, the officer in charge of these operations, reported to Mihailović, Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, that on 10 January 1943: "thirty-three Muslim villages had been burned down, and 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children had been killed, as against 14 Chetnik dead and 26 wounded".

This is a quote from Đurišić report (link):

2) Žrtve: Muslimana boraca oko 400 (stotine) Žena i dece oko 1000.— 
   Naše žrtve: 14 mrtvih i 26 ranjenih od kojih 3 žene 

Đurišić does not mention "(members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians)" in his report so its wrong to attribute this text to him. Also, 10 January is a date of report, not a date of operations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a quote from Tomasevich, Djurisic's report is a primary source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving the issue I pointed at here with this edit (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome, of course, you should have done it yourself instead of expecting me to do all the editing of the article while you nitpick on the talkpage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allegiance of notable Chetnik commanders[edit]

Our fellow editor link to the contribution of BjeliRabac asserted that many notable Chetnik commanders held allegiance to Yugoslavia in at least one period of WWII. The article defines allegiance as "a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his/her state or sovereign." Taking that in consideration, I would appreciate some feedback from other fellow editors if they think there anything particularly wrong with BjeliRabac's assertion? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Using BjeliRabac (whose demonstrated wikibehaviour is extremely poor, and who just got ARBMAC warned for his trouble) as a stalking horse isn't a very good look for you, Antidiskriminator. If you have what you consider to be a legitimate issue, raise it on the relevant article pages of the subject, don't ride into town in a posse led by a blatant POV-warrior who has been removing entirely justified "Axis collaborator" categories from articles about Axis collaborators. I'll discuss specific articles based on the sources, but I'm not having some generic discussion here. And we don't use WP as a source, that's called WP:CIRCULAR. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is better to have centralized discussion at this talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion based on what? Sources, I hope. In which case each individual case needs to reflect the sources used for that article. I won't be participating, as I believe it is pointless to have a generic discussion here about specifics that actually apply elsewhere. Good luck with it, anyway. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox military person says for allegiance: "the country or other power the person served." This discussion is about allegiance of notable Chetniks to a war faction (Chetniks) instead to a country. Since this is article about Chetniks, I don't think it is particularly wrong to discuss here the allegiance of Chetniks. There are many articles about notable Chetnik commanders with inconsistently present their allegiance as mixture of war faction (Chetniks) and states (Italy, Germany). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate Mihailovich's chetniks to a new article[edit]

I'm afraid this article is a little bit confusing. It mixes old Chetniks in Macedonia (before WW1), a nationalistic organization between the wars, Mihailovic's chetniks during the WW2 and Yugoslav wars in 1990s. The article starts with "The Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army, commonly known as the Chetniks..." - but according to info box, they are active from 1904 to 1946. This is difficult to follow even to the people from ex-Yugoslavia. I think it would be better to have few different articles. At least separate WW2 into a separate article. A PDF generated from this article is 30 pages long, 20,000 words, 80 minutes of reading. If somebody simply print the web page - it's 60 pages. Please check WP:SIZERULE. --N Jordan (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree; there should be an all-encompassing article about Chetniks plus separate articles about Chetniks in Old Serbia, Chetniks in the Balkan Wars, Chetniks during World War I, [the interwar] Chetnik Organization, Chetniks during World War II and Chetniks during the Yugoslav Wars. Simply put, far too much material has been written about the Chetniks for it all to be succinctly covered in a single article. Theoretically, the main article ("Chetniks") would act as a sort of introduction or parent article while the other articles would go into greater depth. 23 editor (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Would be a big job, and would have to be done very carefully. So long as it doesn't result in a POV-fork which removes the thrust of this article (about the DM Chetniks), I am supportive of splitting this article into a series of child articles, with this remaining as the summary article. I think archive 7 or 8 has the most recent discussion of this idea. It is worth a look, as it covers some of the concerns various editors had at that point. I'd consider pinging WPs Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, and MILHIST about it to ensure the idea is properly aired. BTW, there is already a fork article Serbian Chetnik Organization. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe to start with a disambiguation page that will explain the name and provide links to separate articles. Generally, people are looking for chetniks in specific period, not for entire history. E.g. they may look for chetniks in Yugoslav wars and finish here, with 30 pages of text. Or they may look for Mihailovich's chetniks and finish with long introduction. I know that is a large project and should be a team effort. Maybe for beginning the existing text can simply be used for creation of few new articles. Once we have that new article completed, we can simply remove that part from this article. Personally, I would leave WW2 chetniks to the very end, and then work on them. --N Jordan (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
N Jordan, I think that instead a disambiguation page, what Peacemaker67 suggests its better, which is to still have one parent article which would be this one here and where all would be concisely included. Then we will have separate articles where everything will be added with more detail. This was already been discussed in the past, and an article about the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland was one of the proposals for the DM Chetniks during WWII. FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get too far down the track with possible titles. I suggest we try to get a consensus that we should convert this article into a summary article, and what the forks should be, then work through the titles of the fork articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are articles under that name on Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, so I don't se the problem. But I agree, lets try to get a consensus. What would be the next step?--N Jordan (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I imagine we'll get the opportunity to discuss that at length. But in my view, the next step would be to decide what topics would actually need a fork article, and which don't. For example, I think contemporary "Chetniks" like the community organisations in Australia and the Serbian volunteers fighting in Ukraine might not. But the Macedonian conflict ones definitely would. Pećanac Chetniks and Serbian Chetnik Organization already exist, although I think the title of the latter isn't precise enough. Perhaps if we talk through the "categories" of Chetniks, that would help? I've started a sub-heading below to discuss, using the suggestions above plus the ones that already exist.

Sub-sets of Chetniks[edit]

I suggest we try to define the scope of each article beneath each bullet point.


Balkan Wars and WW1 can go together, it's very similar topic. Re WW2, I would separate Mihailovich and Pecanac (as Pecanac exist, new article based on what is already here can be created for Mihailovich) Re Mihailovich, we are missing connection with Allies (there is about loosing, but nothing about how that started). Re Yugoslav War, we need separate article but I'd keep Arkan out of the picture (he was Serbian nationalist but not Chetnik, different ideology and choreography. Milosevic was Serbian nationalist - but not chetnik) That article can also be created from parts of existing one. Basically, we miss Balkan Wars/WW1 and interwar. Bottom line: this should be short enough for people to read. --N Jordan (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Arkan was referred to as a Chetnik in some sources, but let's not get into too much about content here, that is a discussion for a future article talk page. There is no reason we can't just call that article Serb paramilitaries since 1990 or something similar. But can we say definitively that there were no Chetniks earlier than 1900? When was the term first used to refer to Serb insurgents? I do not know much about the Ottoman-Serbian Wars, but I understand there was a book published in 1868 called Četovanje ili četnicko ratovanje. Does anyone know anything about Chetnik activities before 1900? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chetniks were those of World War II; if anything, this article should have a background section, which summarizes, with sub-sections, the historical 1. organization in Old Serbia-Macedonia, 2. bands of the Balkan Wars and World War I, 3. Interwar period. In legacy, there should be information on various Chetnik organizations, Chetnik emigre, and the use of the term "Chetniks" in the Yugoslav Wars. Chetniks (disambiguation) is your answer (a hatnote in this article). četovanje refers to guerilla fighting; the word itself is derived from "(small) unit" (četa). --Zoupan 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not understand your comment. Are you saying that this article should just be further expanded? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced at all that a disambiguation page is a good thing. Regarding that issue I am much more supportive of the idea of having one parent article where all issues regarding everything about Chetniks from all periods would be sumarised and then having separate articles where each period will be expanded into detail. After all, Chetniks do have much in common and share the root and traditions from whatever period they are. FkpCascais (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Fkp. One summary article with a series of forks for subtopics that warrant it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC

)::::: Agree, not a disambiguation page, but something very short with references to other articles. The first book that use word "chetnik" was published in 1848 - check this: So, we should start probably with the etymology of the word and guerrilla fighters and bandits ("hajduks") during the Ottoman rule. In one parent article we can summarize the meaning of word in different periods, with short paragraphs and links to separate articles. If we try to summarize all of those topics in same parent article, that will be just an invitation for adding more information to the main article, and we will finish with a new 30 pages monstrum. It's very important to emphasize that word had different meanings in different time, or in different situations. N Jordan (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one short paragraph for each forked article will be sufficient (esp for the DM Chetniks), but each summary section should be limited to four reasonable length paras, based closely on the lead of the fork article. For example, Pećanac Chetniks might be a subsection of a "Chetniks in WWII section" and be based on the lead of that article. There is a danger that some editors will just want to keep adding to the summary article, duplicating the material in the fork article, but if a few editors keep an eye on that, it shouldn't be a problem. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My suggestion was DM Chetniks at Chetniks, as per common name, hence using a hatnote.--Zoupan 14:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. DM Chetniks at Chetniks per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I agree with that. Which would necessitate a hatnote pointing to the summary article, something like {{About|the WWII Chetniks of Draža Mihailović|the history of the Chetnik movement|History of the Chetnik movement}}, or similar? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather see mix of Serbo-Croatian and Croatian article. Explain etymology of the word and meaning in different periods, without too much details. N Jordan (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We need an overall "History of the Chetnik movement" as a summary article, as it has to cover a long period of time, with each section effectively summarising the main article it represents. They can't be too brief, each section needs to provide a summary of the article it links to. I certainly wouldn't support an approach that was light on the necessary detail. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Imo the only thing that may be needed is that non-DM Chetniks be split-off into articles of their own, such as might be necessary. That's all. -- Director (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, N Jordan (talk · contribs), a mention of this discussion on the relevant WikiProject talk pages would be worthwhile if you want to get a wide representation of interested editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)