Talk:Chetniks

Recasted lede

I recast the lede to reduce the POV elements, please discuss changes if you which to revert or alter the new version. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, your proposed edit is opposed. You are not restoring the original version (as one might assume from your above post), you are introducing new changes. New opposed changes. It falls to you to achieve agreement on the talkpage before re-introducing them, not the other way around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you've been pushing the same edits past reverts of you by a number of editors, and I tried to recast the lede to make it more neutral in general. We've discussed this at length during the mediation. The Chetniks were not homogenous, and it is incorrect to say that they all collaborated, period. What are you objections to the version that I put up? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to depict these events in such a thoroughly misleading and blatantly untruthful manner. I am certainly not "pushing any edits", I am reverting your new edit. Please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The "number of editors", consists of yourself and User:FkpCascais, both belonging to the "pro-Chetnik" side of the ongoing dispute on these articles.

You did not "recast" the lede, you blanked all long-standing reference to Chetnik collaboration from it. Set aside the fact that the long-standing segment you are edit-warring to remove has a half-dozen excellent sources to its name, and that it was there since before the dispute even started years ago, according to WP:LEDE: "the lead should summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies." Your edit excludes the largest (and most controversial) section of the article, the "Axis collaboration" section, from any summarization in the lede.

Frankly, I am appalled that you are trying to disguise such blatant POV-pushing as "recasting the lede to make it more neutral". Even if you were not trying to remove long-standing, sourced content with edit-warring. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As always, if you feel that I have violated policy, you are welcome to report me, but continually characterizing other editors (which comments such as "pro-chetnik" and "blatent [sic] POV-pushing" and accusations of edit-warring) is, I believe, inappropriate. You added the text here, and I reverted it [1]. You put it back, accusing me of edit warring and saying that you would bring it up here with this edit. FKP reverted you here, and you put it back again here, and I reverted here, asking you to bring it to the talk page (2nd request for that, which you ignored), and you reverted again here. I recast it to make it more accurate according to our sources (which do not cast the Chetniks in general and uniformly as collaborators increasing in collaboration throughout the war as your version claims, and removing the example which seems to put undue weight on a particular resistance action). You're reverted it again, I put it back, etc., so here we are. You're asserting that it's been in the article for a long time, I'm not sure if that's really relevant, but it's certainly not really true, as a check through the last few month show that it's been in and out of the article a number of times and out of it for a good while before you added it back in--so really you were bold and reverted and didn't discuss the matter, despite your claims to the contrary. Now I have asked you a question regarding the content, and you have not answered it, so please do address the content issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sourced lead segment has recently been under attack by "pro-Chetnik" users and IPs (such as yourself by all appearances). That is not an argument for its removal in and of itself. The point is that the sentence summarizing the "Axis collaboration" section was in the article for months and years, since before the conflict or the mediation even started. It is the status quo. Your most recent removal of the (thoroughly sourced) segment is, as all others, without consensus or sensible rationale (other than promoting the "image" of the Chetniks, of course). Your claims of supposed "POV" denote only your own perception of it, whether honest or not, and not the sources listed below.

In short, it seems you are generally confusing Draza Mihailovic himself with his movement in general, which is the subject of this article. And you are picking and choosing your sources according to a pre-conceived notion of what you yourself personally consider to be "POV". That the chetniks performed ethnic cleansing en masse is beyond doubt and mentioned in numerous sources using that same term (some of which have been presented to you), with even the Chetniks referring to it as (quote) "cleansing actions" - and yet you removed that term on your own perrogative and edit-warred to do so. The fact that very large, massive segments of the Chetnik movement did indeed collaborate with Italy, Germany, the NDH and also the Nedic regime, has been presented in great detail in many impeccable sources - yet you are removing all mention of that fact from the lead. I'm sorry, but it does strike me as odd that you could possibly claim to represent any form of "neutral point of view" at this point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would stick to content. Let's start with Tomosevich, since Martin is not a reliable source, the ref in the lede points to page 226. Where on that page is the phrase "they collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree" supported? I see mention of collaboration between many Chetnik detachments and Croatians, but no mention of collaboration with the Axis. Cohen and Riesman, page 40, pattern of collaboration of M's chetniks, noting that there was an increase in the resistance activity in view of the British, and Pecanac's Chetniks as collaborators, but no support of the notion that all Chetniks collaborated with the Axis and in an ever-increasing pattern. Ramet, p. 147, notes that the Chetniks were polycephalous, and that while some groups collaborated, others did not. Again, no support for the phrase. Hoare is reliable, but perhaps the most biased of the reliable sources we have, so we can use him, but only with due weight. So most of the sources present really don't support this phrase, and I think it's undue weight and POV for the lede of the article. I'd be very interested to hear what other editors have to say about it, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please read the presented sources on the DM quotations page for starters. Then, and I cannot stress this enough, please read through the entirety of Chapter 7: The Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy on p.196 of The Chetniks [2] for the most detailed account of all Chetnik dealings with various Axis factions. At the very least, until such a time as the information provided is obtained - and acknowledged in our discourse, we really cannot discuss these issues on a level plain, as is evidenced by the above post. For example, by the very strange implication that "the Croatians" (by which I assume you are referring to the NDH) were not part of the Axis. I shall not go into how it is incredibly offensive to equate "the Croatians" (i.e. Croats properly spelled) with the Independent State of Croatia regime. It also displays a lack of information about the Federal State of Croatia and the Partisans, by far the more effective resistance movement, which in 1944 e.g. mobilized 5 out of their 9 corps from the territory of (modern) Croatia.

• As far as the exact wording of the sentence is concerned, we are by no means obligated to use the same wording as the source, and are free to summarize information however we choose (in fact the alternative is actually prohibited). However, if you are looking for generalized assessments of Chetnik collaboration, many are available in the sources provided. In fact two of our sources use virtually the same wording, namely both Tomasevich and Sabrina P. Ramet use the terms "extensive and systematic collaboration" (on p.145 and p.246, respectively). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but we are required to use accurate references, including page numbers. I do not believe that the references support the phrase in the lede. And you might reread what I posted, since you misread it. Page 226 from The Cheniks: "The Chetnik groups were in fundamental disagreement with Croatian authorities on practically all problems, but they did face a common enemy in the Partisans, and this was the overriding reason for the collaboration that ensued between the Croatian authorities and many Chetnik detachments". No mention of the Axis. The burden is on you to provide references for the material, and if you find a source that supports the phrase "they collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree", we will have something to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you simply must provide sources for the phrase. The burden is truly on you to do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Croatian authorities" refers to the Independent State of Croatia, a member of the Axis powers. It is stated on that same page in the publication. Indeed, there is literally nothing else on this Earth that phrase could possibly refer to in that historical context. The incredible level of wordplay you're resorting to is, in my opinion, very revealing with regard to the existence of a distinct agenda in your editing, which can at this point be laid out in great detail.

Once again, you are not the person that decides whether or not something meets Wikipedia standards. Not only because I question your understanding of said standards, but also because I sincerely doubt you actually read the sources you are blanking from this page. The sentence is an accurate summary of the events described in the sources listed and in the article's "Axis collaboration" section. The source(s) have been provided. Kindly read them.

Also, as I have said before, it is very distasteful to resort to brute edit-warring. Achieve consensus on the talkpage for your new edits first. I shall certainly not ever agree to you removing the long-standing summary of the article's largest section from the lede (the "Axis collaboration" section). In other words: you can edit-war all you want, I will not consent to your agenda of blanking all mention of Chetnik collaboration from the lede. If you have an alternate summary proposal, please present it here on the talkpage, and in the meantime stop vandalizing that which we have now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, yes, croatian authorities may refer to the NDH, buy you claimed "it is incredibly offensive to equate "the Croatians" (i.e. Croats properly spelled) with the Independent State of Croatia regime". I'm sorry, but the NDH were Croats. Also, please note that the recasting does not remove all mention of Chetnik collaboration:

However, many Chetniks actively collaborated or established modus vivendi with the German and Italian occupation forces in order to fight the Partisans or other groups.

It rather acknowledges that levels of collaboration of Chetnik groups varied, and that is supported by the sources. There is nothing in that phrase that is not supported by sources. We can talk about how to word the lede, but for the version you prefer to stand, you need to supply a source that shows that the Chetniks "collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree." The sources referenced simply do not support that assertion. Page 226 in Tomosevich, for example, treats one group of Chetniks in one area at one time. Ramet directly contradicts the phrase. Also, your incivility is growing tiresome. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've recast the lede again, to try to address DIREKTOR's concerns. I'm also fixing refs, which will take a bit, so please be patient while I'm doing that. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For the fifth time, please stop editing the article without agreement on the talkpage. Post it here first, you know how these things go.

"May" refer to the NDH? :) Believe me, I would be very interested indeed to hear any alternative theories on your part?

The Ustase, their supporters and their government were Croats of course, but "Croats" is a much wider term. The Ustase were a very small movement, several hundred strong, that Italy was organizing throughout the Interbellum. Their regime, that of a small minority fascist faction imported from Italy, was bluntly imposed by an occupying power, and (in spite of an initial upsurge), had very limited support among the Croatian populace - particularly, as you might imagine, among those who resided in the regions that were sold-off to Italy. It is also important to remember that, parallel to the Independent State of Croatia, the infrastructure of the Allied-recognized Federal State of Croatia existed in the (progressively increasing) liberated territories, and that a very large percentage of the Partisans were Croats, Josip Broz Tito being a good example. Now, hopefully, you understand. Therefore in future, even if some sources do so, please refrain at all times from referring to the NDH as "the Croats", any more than you would refer to Nedic's Serbia, for example, as "the Serbs", or Vichy France as "the French".

Regarding your proposal, I do not see how it is incompatible with the current summary, which does not recognize that collaboration progressively increased as the Allies increasingly switched (the vast majority of) their support to the Partisans (which you would be aware of had you consented to read the source as repeatedly recommended). As for characterizing the collaboration on the whole, the terms "extensive and systematic" are well sourced, being used by both Ramet and Tomasevich. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading through your newly entered proposal, it still incorporates large, misleading errors. Such as the implication that various Chetnik detachments fought alongside the Partisans. As I have pointed out, this was simply not the case anywhere after the Chetnik-Partisan conflict erupted. Chetniks and Partisans fought together up until Mihailovic's attack on the Partisan Uzice HQ in October 1941 (during the First anti-Partisan Offensive). Afterwards, there was no cooperation between the two, whatsoever.

In addition, to be perfectly frank, your characterization of Chetnik collaboration is rather lenient and understated, as is your usual style.

To summarize:

• I disagree that the statement on the incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration should be removed, though it could be reworded of course, so as not to suggest it affects all Chetniks.
• I do not agree on the usage of the word "independently" in your draft, for obvious "Draza Mihailovic reasons". Frankly it is unnecessary, for starters, as the sentence does not actually imply the opposite, and it seems to be placed only for the purpose of explicitly "acquitting" Draza Mihailovic. The "independence" of Chetnik collaboration is a complex issue, with contradicting sources, and one I think we should avoid at this time.
• No Chetnik detachments fought alongside the Partisans after the first three months of the conflict, your draft suggests otherwise. That is just a plain error. It is technically accurate to say "some Chetnik detachments fought with the Partisans", but to place that in the context of your paragraph suggests this was the case throughout the war, whereas it only occurred on one single occasion in the first three months of the conflict - before the two movements were even enemies. Your draft also suggests, therefore, that some Chetniks fought against the Partisans, while some fought with them at the same time - whereas they all cooperated until October 1941, and then the lot of them fought each other until the Chetniks' final defeat.
  I did not look-up where you read that particular "summarization", but knowing the details I would immediately suspect the author of bias for such deliberately misleading wordplay.
• The terms "extensive and systematic" are well sourced and I can see no particular reason to exclude them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you're not in charge and you cannot dictate my actions. Everything I put in was well sourced, I double checked them all. You aren't referencing any sources, and just telling me to run off and do more reading is not a substitute. If the sources say that Chetniks fought along side Partisans, that's what we say, even if you do not like it personally. That such activity ceased at some point doesn't make it not true. You are also ignoring that in later stages of the war some Chetniks reduced their collaborationist activities at different times to entice British support, such as Mihailovic's engagement against Quisling forces in 1944 (Milazzo, p. 168), that some Chetnik groups split into pro- and anti-Partisan groups (Milazzo, p. 149), and that the German leadership consistently refused to cut a deal with the Chetniks, and only at the end of the war went so far as to entry into non-agression pacts.(Roberts, p. 125) I don't know if you've considered that relying on a small number of sources may be leading you to a one sided interpretation, but I fear that may be the case. One major problem with the lede you're espousing is it makes the Chetniks appear as a unified group, and they weren't. I'm willing to work with you, but I'm simply not going consider any statement made by you that does not come with an actual reference, including a specific page number. If you're not willing to do provide actual references with page numbers, I'll have to pursue other options. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow, signing off. This is really going too slow.. I wish I could stay up a bit later (its 00:30), but I've got to be at the hospital at 7 AM. Would you consider talking about this on Skype sometime? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I would not. Transparency is important in these matters, and I want everything said between us to be visible to any interested parties. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. Here's my proposal for the expanded coverage of collaboration in the lede you suggest. Its essentially what you wrote, minus the "some fought with the Partisans" bit, minus "independently" since that is very much disputed indeed (e.g. we have Mihailovic himself commanding collaborating formations in joint operations with the Axis), and with the addition of two sentences from the overall descriptions of Chetnik collaboration by Tomasevich and Ramet (the sources you apparently feel it is necessary to exclude as much as possible). I excluded the statement on the incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration, per your demands.

Although the Chetniks were the first of the two resistance organizations to be formed in Yugoslavia, they were never an entirely homogeneous movement. Some groups were implacably anti-German, however, most Chetnik groups collaborated with the Axis to one degree or another in order to fight the Partisans, whom they viewed as their primary enemy, by establishing modus vivendi or operating as "legalised" auxiliary forces under Axis control. Thus, over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetniks reached agreements on collaboration first with the Nedic forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in Montenegro and occupied Dalmatia, then with some of the Ustase forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.(Tomasevich, The Chetniks p.196) While Chetnik collaboration reached "extensive and systematic"(Tomasevich I p.246; Ramet p.145) proportions, the Chetniks' themselves referred to their policy of collaboration(Ramet p.145) as "using the enemy".(Tomasevich I p.196)

Regarding the "some fought with the Partisans" thesis. The author clearly does not, as you do in your draft, suggest that "some Chetnik detachments" fighting with the Partisans was a continuous phenomenon throughout the war. Of course, anyone thoroughly familiarized with this war knows full well that after the "falling out" (early November 1941) the Chetniks considered the Partisans the primary enemy. They fight together against the Germans before that, exactly between September 27 - November 1 1941.

If you seriously contend (and I myself cannot believe that's case) that "some Chetnik detachments" fought with the Partisans after the civil war between them began virtually at the start of the war, as your draft suggests, I would like you to please corroborate that with sources which actually say that, as opposed to making a general statement on the fact that at some time, and in some place, the Chetniks and Partisans fought together.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, do not twist my words: "The author clearly does not, as you do in your draft, suggest that "some Chetnik detachments" fighting with the Partisans was a continuous phenomenon throughout the war." My proposal suggests nothing of the sort, it mere states that some Chetniks fought with the Partisans, and that is true, even after 1941. And if you want to include the quotes above from Ramet and Tomo., we should also include quotes from Roberts and Milazzo, which basically contradict the statement as you have phrased it. It would be more accurate in regard to the Germans to note that agreements were made between local Chetniks and Germans, but that the German central command did not sanction such agreements and consistently sought to wipe them out. Also, I believe your timeline is incorrect, is it not the case that the collaboration of some of the Montenegrin Chetniks proceeded collaboration with Nedic's forces? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said before, please support your assertion that Chetniks and Partisan fought together "after 1941" with sources - before suggesting a formulation that implies it. The burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders with that kind of bombshell positive assertion. Surely, if this was so common a phenomenon to warrant mention in the article lede, you will have no problems finding an account of such an incident somehwere.
  (I have to say, this whole affair is rather amusing to me personally :). You see, having researched this war in detail I've never read of such an incident and I know nothing of the sort took place. Defections occurred all the time in both directions, but not cooperation between the movements.)
• I have not phrased the statement, Tomasevich and Ramet did. Once again contrary to what appears to be your own personal impression, I'm sure the sources do not contradict in reality. What statements from Roberts and Milazzo are you referring to? And please be sure that the alleged "contradiction" truly and unambiguously is just that, as opposed to something like a statement that "some Chetnik groups did not collaborate", which is not contested and is not in opposition to Ramet and Tomasevich.
• The timeline is quoted almost verbatim from Tomasevich. You'll find he explains himself in the first section of chapter 7 of volume I (located on p.196). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, defections are part of it. Here's one: "Many armed detachments simply dissolved or pursued independent courses of action. In the vicinity of the Romanije Mountains, the Chetniks split up into pro- and anti-Partisan groups; in the Kalinovik sector evidence suggests that a former Chetnik officer who had just gone over to the Partisans was responsible for the murder of other still loyal supporters of M." (Milazzo, p. 149) Your version consistently and uniformly paints the entire movement as collaborationist, and that's not what the sources show. You speak of the Chetniks as if it were a unified movement, but it wasn't, and that's a big problem from my point of view.

Here's a quote from Roberts:"Cetnik collaboration with the Germans, however, was another matter. What the Cetniks were doing was to attempt to prevent the Partisans from entering "their" territory, and in that respect their and the Germans' aims coincided. But any direct collaboration between the Cetniks and the Germans must be excluded, simply because the objective of the German High Command was the destruction of the Cetniks." (Roberts, p. 101). It is very true that M. tried to collaborate, for example, with the Germans, and that there were local accommodations, but the German command structure never endorsed these. The situation was more complicated than you wish to portray it. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Defections are not "part of it". Defections of Chetnik units to the Partisans were very commonplace, particularly towards the end of the war when the King and his government came out publicly for the Tito and the Partisans (October 1944). However that is not what we're talking about, and if we are by any chance, then defection is what we'll call it. Your formulation unambiguously suggests Chetniks and Partisans were allies in certain areas, depending on the Chetnik unit there. If that is what you still claim then please source it.

Moving on to the other issue. If you feel a particular part of my meager two sentences in your draft generalizes to a greater degree than necessary, please be more specific. However, bear in mind that all I am doing is keeping to the sources extremely closely (almost word-for-word).

I can not see how any of the above contradicts the fact that "Chetnik collaboration was extensive and systematic"? If, instead, you are now challenging the fact that Chetnik troops collaborated with the Germans (at times and in places), numerous incidents of that sort can easily be described in full detail from sources. But none of the above constitutes a contradiction to the general assessments on the extent of Chetnik collaboration Tomasevich and Ramet brought forth, as the latter do not address the question of whom the Chetniks collaborated with in any way.

We are both well informed with regard to Mihailkovic, but I sense a certain advantage when it comes to the movement as a whole. Yes, Mihailovic wanted to reach an accommodation with the Germans, but Hitler and the Nazis (unlike the German military itself) would not agree. The German command therefore, as you say, never endorsed the collaboration - but it did occur nevertheless. Before I start copying down pages and chapters, I want to be sure you are in fact challenging that? In any case, before you do, please read this; it is sourced in its entirety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day DIREKTOR. The quote from Tomasevich at p.246 you refer to is 'systematic and enduring', not 'extensive and systematic' as you have indicated. Not wishing to engage in semantics, but it appears you have combined the Tomasevich and Ramet references, and they are not the same, so they should probably be separated or summarised differently.

And g'day Nuujinn as well. In the current lede, you have used an example of Chetnik-Partisan cooperation prior to the split in November 1941. I consider the inclusion of this example is potentially misleading, as it follows and supports a general statement that Chetniks 'sided with the Partisans in joint battles'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to either qualify the 'joint operations' as occurring before the split, or provide a 'post-split' example. I am not aware of any post-split examples, but am open-minded if you can source a high quality reference. Also, in respect of endorsement of collaboration by the German high command, Colonel General Lohr, commander in chief of the south-east, and of Army Group E throughout that region of Europe (not just a local battalion, regimental or even divisional commander), accepted that the temporary German shoulder-to-shoulder fighting alongside the Chetniks against the Partisans was a necessary evil. He was referring to the fighting during Operation Weiss 2 in February-March 1943 (Tomasevich Vol I, p.247). It was 'uncomfortable' for the Germans, according to Tomasevich, but it occurred, particularly in Konjic where Germans and Chetniks fought alongside each other and the Germans provided ammunition to the Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right the two sources do use slightly different wording. We can choose one of the two versions or simply use "systematic" since that's certainly sourced.

Chetniks and Partisans never cooperated after November 1941, the very thought is laughable of course - they hated each-other's guts. The Partisans considered them "traitors" ("Četnik-izdajica!") both in the sense of collaboration with the foreign enemy and their attack on Uzice at the time when they were unofficial allies. The Chetniks, of course, as is noted numerous times in many sources, considered the Partisans their primary enemy, and even collaborated with the Axis to get rid of them.

Your example of Fall Weiss is a good one, and let me add once more that Draza Mihailovic, by his own recorded personal admission, maintained full control of Chetnik units participating in that operation (and that was one of the facts omitted by Nuujinn in his draft proposal for the section on the collaboration of Draza Mihailovic). However, according to Tomasevich, Chetnik-German collaboration reached its high point after the Italian capitulation. Also, Tomasevich notes on numerous occasions that collaboration with the NDH, which started in 1942 and was widespread in Bosnia north of the German-Italian demarcation line, was indirect collaboration with the Germans as well since the NDH was not an independent faction - its military was both supplied and commanded by the Germans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you are all going to have to forgive me for the lack of inflections on names and places on the talk page. DIREKTOR, I would be happy with just 'systematic', as it is the same term used by two quality sources. As far as indirect collaboration via the Nedic regime or NDH is concerned, perhaps you would consider adding 'and/or the quisling regimes' or something similar after the word 'Axis' in your draft of that para?

Given the article is about all Chetniks but with an emphasis on the WW2 Chetniks, and there is a separate albeit brief article about the Pecanac Chetniks, I believe that the introductory couple of sentences in the lede should mention the Pecanac Chetniks. After all, they existed from the time of the invasion and their existence in parallel with the Mihailovic Chetniks demonstrates the wide range of Chetnik organisations that existed from the very beginning. I also consider it strange that the lede of such an article does not actually mention Mihailovic himself, especially when the movement that is named (JVUO) is clearly the one he created. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, I think mentioning other Chetnik groups in lede would make sense so long as it is brief. Also, to be clear, the current lede isn't my version, I've been trying to move away from the current version. See this for my proposal, which moves the specific battle reference to the footnote, as I feel the mention of the one specific event is undue weight. I agree that systematic is sourced, but not all sources agree. Milazzo, on page 182 in his conclusion says "The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order" , and in the preface "It is unavoidable that a study which deals with a movement whose leaders’ long-haul anti-Axis goals all proved abortive and whose short-term arrangements involved a number of tactical accommodations with the occupation order must attempt to clarify the extremely difficult issues of resistance and collaboration. The overriding question is how a movement whose leadership was in no sense pro-Axis found itself progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities and the native Quisling regimes. What was it about the situation in occupied Yugoslavia and the Serb officers’ response to that state of affairs which prevented them from carrying out serious anti-Axis activity or engaging in effective collaboration?" I think it's important to get something beyond "systematic" in there, since it appears that the collaboration was based on local and transient relationships, esp. in regard to the Germans, for most if not all of the war. For example, there's no doubt that Mihailovic would have liked to have achieved a relationship with the Germans early on, but he failed to do so, and as late as 1944, Hitler himself opposed any collaboration between small tactical operations. The word collaboration is loaded, and we should take care to specify what it means in this context. In the current lede, the phrase I particularly object to is "ever increasing", as I have yet to see a source that supports use of that phrase. Also, for what it is worth, I'll be on WP spottily for the next week or so, as RL has reared it's ugly head.... Nuujinn 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you very often see conflicting sources when there are none in reality. I had already cautioned you to please be certain that is in fact the case before making that claim. The two sources you quote simply add that, in addition to "systematic", "extensive", and "eduring", Chetnik collaboration was also described as "tactical", "selective", "hopelessly compromising", and if you'll note - "progressive" i.e. "(ever) increasing in extent or severity" (which is btw a very basic piece of information, on par with the non-existence of "regional Chetnik-Partisan alliances"). None of that contradicts either Tomasevich or Ramet in any sense (if necessary I can quote Merriam-Webster on that too :)), and neither is the overall message of the authors fundamentally different. We can hardly expect five different authors to use the exact same wording, but "conflicting"? certainly not.

The bottom line is that you're pushing very strongly for the exclusion/marginalization of Tomasevich and Ramet. I suspect because you perceive them as biased and "anti-Chetnik", as a consequence of myself bringing them up, but do not wish to openly make that claim because you lack backing. The sources, while present in the article from old edits, are not included (or are very underrepresented) in all of your proposals and drafts. Why should we not use the wording quoted from these sources, as was suggested? I think you'll have to do better than going "beyond systematic", whatever that means. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing my position--I'm not seeking to exclude any source, but rather to introduce balance by acknowledging that other sources disagree with Ramet and Tomosevich. Your use of Ramet, for example, is extremely selective. And I will once again ask that you refrain from commenting on motives and focus on content. Your continuing focus on who is pro serbian and who is not is extremely tiresome. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its interesting how your post manages to claim I am anti-Serbian without saying so. Impressive. I shall make myself clear for the record: I do not believe that the distinctions between Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins are worthy of notice on the larger scale, and I consider them primarily based on religion. Rather the four are, in my opinion, varieties of the same people, formed through a different historical background. For future reference, the term you are looking for is "pro-Chetnik" (or rather "anti-Direktor" in some cases ;)).

If, at this point, you seriously still wish to claim you are unbiased, you should at least explain why is it that you've excluded so much (virtually all) information from Tomasevich and Ramet in your drafts, that would have a negative impact on Draza Mihailovic's image (such as his collaboration during Fall Weiss). Otherwise, any such claims are devoid of all credibility imo.

Now then. Firstly, you have not shown any disagreement or contradiction in the sources whatsoever. At best, Tomasevich (and Ramet) simply include information you did not find mentioned in the sources you favor. In the above case specifically, as far as "systematic and extensive" is concerned, there is demonstrably no contradiction at all. Yet you continue to discuss as if there is.

Secondly, it is a fact that you favor certain sources while excluding others and that can be seen easily at a glance at any one of your drafts and proposals. When the suggestion is made to include Tomasevich and/or Ramet to the proposal, thus "introducing balance" - you oppose it every time. A clear pattern has long since emerged.

Thirdly, you have not yet acknowledged that you were wrong on the issue of alleged Chetnik-Partisan alliances post-1941. Or that the progressive nature of Chetnik collaboration is sourced (by yourself, ironically in the same post where you dispute it). By ignoring issues, or I should say sourced facts, you are not helping the progression of the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I was frustrated (in the time prior to starting to contribute here) with what I consider lack of focus here. Surely the way these talk pages have been set up is to put up quality sources, weigh their value and arrive at a consensus position based on that value that can be entered into the article? Have I misunderstood the rules?

One of the things that appears to be lacking here is weighting of sources. Ramet, Milazzo, Roberts and Tomasevich are all, imo, quality sources on this topic. However, that doesn't mean they are equal, or that all the primary source material that they reflect is equal. If Tomasevich or anyone else makes an observation about a fact in issue in this article, then that is relevant to this discussion. However, if that observation is not based on a quality primary source with limited scope for bias to have crept in (such as German or Italian military records), and Roberts or someone else makes an observation that IS based on such a source, then it is very hard to accept that they are of equal weight. A great example of this is the records of the trial of Mihailovic and his fellow Chetniks. The trial has been criticised (quite accurately in my view) as a show trial. Given this, observations made by anyone, reputable or not, which is solely based on these records and the statements attributed to Mihailovic at the trial or during his pre-trial interrogation, must be given appropriate weight (not much in my view). Could we get down to 'tin tacks' with this stuff? How about we look at the inline referencing of the quotes that editors are proposing should be relied upon, and discuss the appropriate weight they should be given. I am not committed to a particular POV on this article, I just want it to reflect the sources (with appropriate weight).

I'll start this off. On p.246 of Tomasevich, where the 'systematic and enduring' quote comes from, Tomasevich does not use any inline referencing to support his observation. But as he uses the phrase 'as described in this study', we can fairly assume that it is his overall view based on all the sources he has used in his research on the Chetniks. Given his use of a range of primary sources is impressive, and some have not been accessed by some of the other sources we have accepted as quality sources for this article, in particular examples of collaboration drawn from German and Italian military records, in the absence of high quality evidence that he misinterpreted those sources, I would give Tomasevich's observation considerable weight.

What I would really like to see is a conflicting quote from Roberts or one of the other quality sources, with commentary regarding the quality or otherwise of the primary sources he used to justify his observations, whether he used an inline reference for his observation, and what it was. How about it, Nuujiin? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you want to give Tomašević "considerable weight" as seems that the main goal is to include "systematic" or similar wording to wrongly give the impression that they collaborated all the time. Quite obvious and... wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about FkpCascais, and I will not engage in this nonsense about what my goal is. I have stated my goal, that I want the article to reflect the sources with appropriate weight. I have NOT said that I thought the Chetniks collaborated all the time. The 'systematic and enduring' quote is from Tomasevich (whom I give considerable weight), and I've identified the page and discussed the referencing. It does not give the impression that the Chetniks collaborated 'all the time', as that is not what it says. 'Systematic and enduring have their own meanings, and do not mean, individually or together, 'all the time'. How about you do me the same courtesy in relation to your unreferenced statement that the Chetniks did not collaborate systematically? Where are your source(s)? What references did they use for their observation(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or even provide some reasons why you consider Tomasevich's view should not be given 'considerable weight', as you appear to indicate he should not. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich's The Chetniks, to quote the American Historical Association, is the most complete and best book about the Chetniks ever to be published. That is to say, "better" than the others :). And has received more academic praise than any of our sources here - indeed, many actually cite it. The really impeccable credentials of the publication are the primary reason why I selected it to research these difficult, obscure and controversial issues in the first place years ago, and why I quote it more frequently than any other reference. Unfortunately, my usage and support of the source alone seems to have been enough for users Nuujinn and Sunray to support drafts that completely ignore huge amounts of information from it - overruling any objections through sheer numerical superiority, and with such success that it has shaken my confidence in the scientific foundations of Wikipedia itself.

FkpCascais, however, is here simply to defend the Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic, as always. The interesting fact is that, while nobody has proposed the inclusion of such a statement ("systematic" does not mean "all the time"), the Chetniks most certainly did, in fact, collaborate continuously ("all the time") in one region or another from late 1941 and early 1942 - up until the end of the war. The most that can be said is that they did not collaborate everywhere, all the time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevic is one of the sources, which by the way is the one choosing the hardest way to describe them. Editors wanting to make a point obviously like extreme views versus other more objective way of describing the same issue. Peacemaker, we have been dealing for long time now with selective choosing of sources to find a way to insert the worste possible language to describe the movement, so nothing new here... I also demonstrated how they engaged in resistance activities trought the war (in this region, or that, as direktor says...) so we have to be objective on this. And yes, "systematic and enduring" is not exactly the same as "all time", but quite convenient to describe one POV negative towards the movement. I am being objective, and Nuujinn´s version is quite close to it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. I don't understand your first sentence. It may just be the punctuation, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you reword it so I can understand what you are saying? There are three things in Nuujiin's recast lede that I fail to understand. The first is: the lack of a mention of Mihailovic. The organisation that is named in the lede was formed by him, and it should be attributed to him, whether the movement was homogenous or not. Second: the use of the term 'independently' in relation to collaboration. There are several excellent sources for Mihailovic's control over various (but not all, and not at all times) Chetnik detachments who collaborated. My view is that given the sources from which this information is drawn, the word 'independently' is not justified. I am not suggesting M knew about, agreed to, or controlled all of the collaboration that occurred, but he did know about, agree to, or control some of it. There are many high quality sources for this, and the instances include his control over Chetniks detachments operating within the NDH that collaborated with the Italisns (which comes from German military records), and the collaboration with the Italians during Fall Weiss (German and Italian military records along with his own description of his involvement in that operation). Third: including in the lede the reference to a short period of cooperation between some Chetniks and some Partisans (and even a supporting reference) is inappropriate given that the lede should give an overview of collaboration (or not) by Chetnik detachments, not single out one occasion where they fought the Germans alongside the Partisans. To be fair, it should probably say that after several months of fitful cooperation with the Partisans by Chetnik detachments in some areas, most detachments were eventually compromised through collaboration to varying degrees with the Axis and/or their quisling regimes in Serbia or the NDH. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Among the sources we have been working with, Tomasevic is definitely the one choosing the hardest tone to describe the relation between Chetniks and Axis forces. Now, regarding the concerns you express here, I see no problem in discussing them, but either way, Nuujinn´s version beats the previous one as it is more precise and less controversial and one sided. Now, having Mihailovic mentioned can be easily worked out, although he didn´t "formed the Chetniks", but the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, which came out to be considered part of the Chetnik movement and labeled as "Chetniks" troughout the war. I agree with you on this, as it is inevitable that the sources refer mostly to the Mihailovic movement as simply "Chetniks", and because of their size and importance the article naturally focuses way more in them, rather then on marginal Pecanac one. Now, the rest is where we don´t agree. The article deals in detail with the collaboration issue, being their resistance efforts clearly the ones being more ignored here, so why the major mission in labeling in the worste possible way in any chance? That ends up not being objective and POV. After all, Chetniks and Partisans didn´t stoped cooperating because of collaboration, but because of their major ideological divergences and goals. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fkp swoops in with a post with so many problems I don't know where to start. Deja vu.

• That is your own personal impression and personally I am not interested to hear it. You may feel free to repeat it another 20 times if you feel inclined to do so, but that alone will not change the standing of any source in even the slightest way.

• Draza Mihailovic founded a movement known as the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army", and later renamed it for propaganda purposes. Perhaps the word "Chetnik" had something to do with them being "labeled as Chetniks".

• The Chetniks and Partisans stopped cooperating because on 1 November 1941 Draza Mihailovic ordered his forces to attack the Partisan headquarters in Uzice (hoping to kill Tito), while the two movements were jointly holding a front against the Germans. He did so after dispatching two of his aides (Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović) two days before on 28 October - to inform the Germans that he was willing to (quote) "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". And that's the whole story. In other words, the Partisans were quite correct in stating that the conflict between them started due to "Chetnik treachery".

• Pecanac's tiny force of a few thousand, disbanded after 2 yaers, is utterly insignificant. There is no question whatsoever that "Chetniks" in the context of WWII refers to the Mihailovic Chetniks. That can easily be verified with evidence of sources usage of the term. Indeed, the term "Chetniks" in any context primarily refers to the WWII Chetniks of Draza Mihailovic. And the text makes it clear who's Chetniks it talks about.

• As for their marginal resistance activities, feel free to expand the article in that respect. But be sure you will not be removing any sourced information from the article on any such faulty basis. Nuujinn perhaps said it best when he quoted Milazzo (p.182): "The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order." We should definitely include Milazzo's assessment of their resistance, unless some contradicting assessment can be presented.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously not me having problems here...

They are refered as "Chetniks" because they were found as a Chetnik movement, so? My point was just to clear that Mihailovic didn´t "found the Chetniks", something that wasn´t clear in Peacemaker´s words.

Chetniks and Partisans didn´t stoped cooperating because of "collaboration" as Peacemaker indicated. Your explanation confirms my post.

Pecanac force was minor but I beleave that not even one scholar describes them as "utterly insignificant"... Anyway, we kind of agree on this as well.

"Marginal resistance"? Source that if you can, otherwise is your extremely perjurative POV which unables you to edit this subject objectively. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not you, its your post. Don't put words in my mouth.

• Mihailovic did found the Chetniks during WWII, and that was quite plainly Peacemakers meaning. We are not discussing the Balkan Wars here. Also, that was obviously not your point, your point was that the "Chetniks came to be considered part of the Chetniks", which makes no sense, and they were (quote) "labeled" as such.
• My post explains that was an arguable statement. Mihailovic dispatched his aides with offers to place himself at the Germans' disposal prior to attacking his erstwhile allies.
• "Chetniks" in the WWII context refers to the Mihailovic Chetniks, do you seriously challenge that? :)
• I actually included the source in the post above. Marginal resistance activity. Please be more careful.

You are edit-warring to remove a long-standing, sourced lede segment, that was in the article for literally years now, in spite of active opposition on the talkpage. And you're pushing User:Nuujinn's version of the lede, also without consensus and in spite of opposition. In addition, you're blatantly misquoting sources by simply placing them where you feel like. You already recently blanked content from this article, in spite of opposition and without consensus through WP:EDIT-WARRING. You will NOT be allowed to do so again. Its the weekend you know, and now I actually have time to bring to light this new "method" you and Nuujinn are using to push your changes through.

Nuujinn's lead changes are opposed on the basis of bias through omission, with sources to back that up. Discuss here on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker was probably refering to the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, I was just checking it.

"We are not discussing Balkan Wars here". Oh no? Why not? Because some editors are only interested to edit the collaboration issue on this article. FYI Chetniks article includes Balkan Wars as well.

"Marginal resistance" and "a marginal sort of resistance activity" (and read it in context) are different. You are the one purpously changing the meaning to diminish the meaning, so it is not me not being carefull. You are making a wrong interpretation. Check it yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard of the edits, the version you defend was allways challenged and highly POV including unsourced statements and selective decontextualised use of sources. You edit warred for 2 years to keep your version of collaboration description, so it means it was never stable neither long-standing as it was allways disputed by numerous editors. FkpCascais (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Marginal resistance activity" (which is what I said) and "Marginal sort of resistance activity" are actually not different in any way. And the context does not change the author's meaning in the slightest.
• No. The version doers not have any unsourced statements whatsoever, and the sources are not used in a selective or de-contextualised manner. The text is sourced fully and in accordance with WP:V requirements.

Discussion of this sort is useless. You just make unfounded, uncorroborated, and plain untrue statements, and then you repeat them over and over again. All you do is attempt to somehow "relativize" plain and simple sourced statements and facts through demagoguery. This sort of arguing has never helped you, and will not help you now. I seriously think people actually count on you writing these sort of posts and derailing any meaningful discussion through off-topic and vague exchanges with myself. Please read the lede proposal and explain why you are opposed to the addition of sourced facts from Tomasevich and Ramet therein. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn already explained to you the problems about your version and how it fails in objectiveness. In the meantime I made an edit in your version that bring more neutrality to the lead section, but seems you allways find a problem. You already demonstrated here by your previous comments that you are editing the article with only one purpose and seems you will allways create endless problems to any attempts to bring neutrality to the article. Now please stop your personal attacks against me. FkpCascais (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You'll leave the discussion to Nuujinn - you'll just edit war when called upon. You two have been reported (and for previous edit-warring/section blanking as well). The problem, you see, is that Nuujinn's "explanations" (as you choose to call them) are demonstrably faulty, incorrect, and even self-contradictory. They do not, in any conceivable way, constitute a reasoning that justifies the exclusion of sourced information, and indeed, whole entire sources. Nuujinn has been rebutted, and has not continued to discuss. I refrained from introducing additional information only out of politeness. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You just make these posts of yours with all wrong facts hoping someone from ANI will read them and buy your version of facts. Direktor, no one called me, I made a mediation request on this subject remember? And Nuujinn has not left the discussion because he gave up (dear Lord, you prooved him wrong lol) but because he has more life then being here discussing with you. Regarding the rest, seems more like you are analising your own version when describing Nuujinn´s one... You just edit-war hoping you´ll get it trough (your last revert on this article was your 80th, 80th revert!!!!!!!), and when you see it doesn´t go that way, you make all efforts to find some other ways (report this, that, etc.). Your version is prooven wrong, removed from the related article at mediation, and you have no support from any established user, but rather all established users (including the mediator and all admins involved) oppose you. Just see the number of users you edit-warred on this article. And most importantly, the sources do not support you, but they do Nuujinn´s version. So, good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. – What reference do you rely on to support your contention that Tomasevich has the 'hardest tone' of all the sources? He is one of very few to make full use of the German and Italian military records that are available. This may have resulted in him being a little more critical of various Chetnik detachments regarding collaboration, but that might just be because his evidence for it is of better quality and unlikely to be biased. I fail to see why that would reduce his quality as a source unless this is a POV issue because an editor personally doesn't like his conclusions. His is not an extreme view, in fact it is one of the most widely respected in academic circles. I don't rely solely on him, as there is some very interesting and relevant work that has been done by other authors, some time ago and even more recently, but he remains a stand-out. I am not aware of any credible review that says otherwise. Please reference one if you have one, otherwise please back off on Tomasevich. – My reference to including M was in the second para of the lede. My point was that he should be mentioned because he formed the Chetnik Detachments in the Fatherland and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. Happy to provide references for this, from Milazzo, Roberts, Ramet or Tomasevich, you choose. But I note your apparent agreement that M should be mentioned in the lede, so I will draft a revised sentence for further discussion here. – I really don't understand what you are saying in the sentence that begins 'The article deals in detail...'. What Chetnik resistance efforts are you referring to? Operation Halyard? Collection of intel on German troop positions and movements? That's a little different in scope and scale from the collaboration of Chetnik detachments with the Italians in the NDH or during Fall Weiss. In what way is it lacking objectivity or POV pushing to note that many or most Chetnik detachments collaborated to some extent by the end of the war? Many examples have been sourced on this talk page on multiple occasions by other editors, but I am happy to do it in detail myself if necessary. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, there are many issues here. We have been discussing this for 2 years now. And resistance was not only Operation Halyard, lol. All these exact issues were discussed at leght during the mediation discussions of very related Draza Mihailovic (see talk pages, including obviously archives and mediation pages). I´ll come back to you tomorow. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. I object to the condescending tone. I have been following this discussion for months, and have read all of the archives on the Mihailovic page, the linked quotes, mediation etc, many more than once. I must say I glazed over several times with some of the nonsense that passed for proper discussion and with the unsourced POV pushing, but I made it all the way through to bring myself up-to-date before I came on here. I have copies of all the key references and have studied WW2 Yugoslav history for over 15 years. I have not read a single credible criticism of Tomasevich on this article talk page or that of Mihailovic. So my comment about backing off Tomasevich stands. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

How is this for a re-draft of the relevant sentence to insert Mihailovic?

The movement formed by Draža Mihailović in 1941 was initially named the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" (Četnički odredi jugoslovenske vojske) and was later renamed the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО), though the original name remained the most common in use throughout the war, even among the Chetniks themselves.

If other editors consider there is a need for inline referencing for Mihailovic forming the movement being referred to here (in 1941), I will include one. It seems unnecessary to do so, as I believe it is undisputed, but I certainly am happy to include one if anyone wants it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, that sounds fine to me, although according to Roberts, "In order to dissociate himself from the Cetniks who collaborated with the Germans, Mihailovic at first called his movement the "Ravna Gora Movment" However, as the other Cetniks became mere adjuncts of the occupying forces the name Cetnik was once again associated with Mihailovic". (page 21-22). I also took the liberty of inserting an arbitrary break above, since the section was getting long. Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I'm in the middle of moving my SO in and prepping the house she was in for sale, along with some major landscaping. In regard to "What I would really like to see is a conflicting quote from Roberts or one of the other quality sources, with commentary regarding the quality or otherwise of the primary sources he used to justify his observations, whether he used an inline reference for his observation, and what it was," I'm a bit confused since we're not really in a position to evaluate at a low level how a reliable source came to a given conclusion. That being said, Tomosevich is very fine source, and I'm not opposed to any statements that can be sourced to him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call regarding the arbitrary break. As far as the various names of the movement/organisation we are talking about, Tomasevich says that "Ravna Gora Movement" was a name used by Chetniks to describe themselves (he does not give it the status of an official name as Roberts does) (Vol 1, p.123), and observes the progression of names as 'The Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army', then 'Military-Chetnik Detachments', then from January 1942, when M was appointed Minister in the government-in-exile, it became 'Yugoslav Army in the Homeland' which it remained for the balance of the war (Vol 1, p.125). I certainly don't have a problem with including 'The Ravna Gora Movement' as a common usage as well. However, and I m at a disadvantage here in respect of my language skills, there appears to be a (possibly) semantic difference between Tomasevich's translation of one of the names and the one used in the current article. Bear with me and I will do my best with this. Essentially the difference is that in the article the word 'otadzbini' is translated as 'Fatherland' and Tomasevich translates it as 'Homeland'. Which is it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I beleave both are correct. Literarely translated would be "Fatherland", as the root of Otadžbina is Otac (English: Father) but "Homeland" would be perhaps more correct in context. FkpCascais (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you are both happy with 'Homeland' in context, and the insertion of Mihailovic, I propose the following edit:

The movement formed by Draža Mihailović in 1941 was initially named the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" (Četnički odredi jugoslovenske vojske) and was later renamed the "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland" (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО) . The original name remained the most common in use throughout the war, even among the Chetniks themselves, although 'The Ravna Gora Movement' was also used by them when referring to the movement formed by Mihailovic (Tomasevich, Vol.1, p.123). Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the above was ever seriously in question, but its good to have resolved something at least. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that users Nuujinn and FkpCascais have WP:EDIT-WARRED their changes into the article without consensus, regardless of any objections here on the talkpage, it will be interesting to note the level of cooperation said users would be willing to show in actually achieving an agreement on this issue (now that they do not really need to, that is).

Once again, there are serious inaccuracies in the text, and serious issues with the omission of assessments of Chetnik collaboration and resistance by some of the "best" sources available to us.

• Chetnik collaboration was "progressive" (Milazzo p.182), i.e. increasing through time. Unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it. This fact should to be mentioned in the lede (as it had been for several years).
• Chetnik resistance activities were described as "marginal" (also Milazzo p.182). Equally, unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it.
• Various adjectives used by authors to directly describe Chetnik collaboration are "systematic" (Tomasevich and Ramet), "extensive" (Ramet), "enduring" (Tomasevich), "tactical" (Milazzo), and "selective" (Milazzo) (and, if you will, "hopelessly compromising"). I would suggest using "systematic and selective", with Ramet's assessment also included in some way, so as to cover all the sources.

The perceived problems with Nuujinn's proposal are as follows:

• Chetniks and Partisans did not cooperate anywhere or at any time after they became enemies on 1 November 1941. This is a grave error, and the text should not suggest anything of the sort.
• Nuujinn's draft states that the most Chetnik detachments "collaborated independently". "Independently" is, from what sources we have seen, Nuujinn's own assessment on the nature of Chetnik collaboration, and is seriously contradicted by sources such as Tomasevich, which bring forth, for the best example, Draza Mihailovic's own personal admission that he commanded such "independently" collaborating Chetniks in joint operations with Italian and German forces during Fall Weiss.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Small steps, DIREKTOR. I know my initial points were minor, but from small things, big things grow. I too am keen to have more discussion on the wording and supporting sources that have been used in the recast lede. I am happy to go through what has been recast in an incremental way in order to get changes agreed by the key editors here so that no-one reverts. If we have a point in the lede that could be re-stated in a NPOV and more accurate way in the body of the article, then I suggest we get agreement as we go. I am not keen on a broad sweeping approach to editing this, as I just don't see how any consensus will ever be built that way. If Nuujiin and FkpCascais are happy with the edit I proposed, I will whack it in there and we can move on to something more interesting... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I am OK with your edit proposal. Lets see where can be placed, and then see how the lead flows and if it needs any minor adjustements.

@DIREKTOR, if I remember well, I think we all agreed that Chetniks increased their resistance activities by the end of the war in order to regain their possition among Allies as main resistance movement, so only that by itself breaks down the "ever-increasing collaboration" theory. Not to mention the fightings in 1943 and Allied rescuing activity, that one more correctly described as "ever-increasing" by the evolution of events.

Also, please go read the sentence I asked you to read back then. Milazzo doesn´t say that Chetniks resistance was "marginal", but that they engaged in a marginal type of resistance, something very different from what you want to present, and I could even go as far as saying that those precise words source their active resistance (whatever the type, and marginal does not mean quantity, but type of fighting strategy).

Also, please notece that the current lead covers both, resistance and collaboration, but excludes any extreme wording, so no reason for panic for no side direktor. FkpCascais (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit re: M and The Ravna Gora Movement done. I would like to get into a discussion regarding WP:IRS in the lede. I consider that in order to meet the requirements of WP:IRS in the context of the disputed nature of the article, we should be looking for better and more detailed references that a brief BBC online article (albeit written by a RMA Sandhurst academic, but with no inline referencing and no mention of Milazzo, Ramet or Tomasevich in the bibliograpy) and a book written in French for which I haven't been able to locate any reviews in English. Does anyone know if Buisson's book is even available in English? It isn't available on Amazon or Book Depository. If not, then WP:NONENG applies. We must be able to locate better sources than these for the relevant facts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your edit, I am perfectly fine with it. There is only one issue: it should mention that Chetniks were formed earlier, in 1904 and that they were active in previos wars as well. For reasons of disputed sections we have been completely focused on WWII events, however they were active since almost half a century earlier in important war theatres, certainly worth mention and also not to misleade as if it the Chetniks begin with Mihailovic. Perhaps just a single centence pointing this out would be good in my view. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and although there is already a reference to earlier conflicts, I don't see a problem with revising what is there as long as it is brief and sourced. The article is about the Chetniks/Chetnik Movement per se, not just the WW2 Chetniks (although they predominate in the article for obvious reasons). Following the same logic, I consider we should remove 'Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland' from the first sentence of the first para, as that term is a WW2 one only. How they fit in to the overall scheme of things is already well covered in the next para of the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. We should emphasize in the lede that we are discussing the Mihailovic Chetniks of WWII, by far the most (in)famous organization to carry the Chetnik name. Even though previous manifestations are very obscure indeed compared to the WWII movement, the Chetnik tradition does in fact originate at an earlier date. It should be noted though, that the term "Chetniks" is virtually synonymous with the Mihailovic Chetniks of WWII, in any context.

@FkpCascais, regarding your challenging Milazzo. Firstly. once again, collaboration is one thing - resistance another. An increase in resistance does not indicate a lax in collaboration. Secondly, no we did not agree that the Chetniks increased their resistance activities near the end of the war. They did not, in fact, since near the end of the war they were falling apart. The single solitary case of note is Operation Halyard (which is not even a military conflict), but that in itself does not support your WP:OR conclusion that they generally started "resisting more" on the whole and as a faction. Thirdly, for general reference, the only thing that can "break down" any assertion presented in a source is - a contradicting source. Certainly not your own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH "conclusions". What you are saying is "even though the source says they collaborated increasingly, because of Halyard I assess that they resisted more, and therefore I assess that they could not possibly have increasingly collaborated."

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but would please stop presuming to challenge sources without sources. Its a waste of everyone's time, including yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now then. We are in essence waiting for sources that might support the disputed aspects of Nuujinn's text, and sources that might be a basis for disputing the proposed additions. We have been for days now. I will be introducing any unchallenged changes into the article soon enough if the situation does not change. It is starting to look like there really is no basis in sources for any objections, and that the issue is being stalled. Nuujinn, please provide sourced evidence of Partisan-Chetnik cooperation post-November 1941 as soon as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, I've been back to Tomasevich a lot in the last few weeks. He (p.159) indicates (and it is clear from the context he is talking about eastern Bosnia in the winter of 41/42 here) that 'a few Partisan and Chetnik detachments, by mutual agreement among their commanders, continued to cooperate.' It is also clear from the following couple of pages that as a result of the B&H Partisan conference at Ivancici in early January 1942, the B&H Partisans accepted 'volunteer army detachments' of Chetniks who did not accept the Partisan political program and would not wear the red star. The non-Partisan-aligned Chetnik detachments in eastern Bosnia then successfully subverted five of six Partisan detachments in the region, including 'practically all detachments of the 'volunteer army' (ie the Partisan-aligned Chetnik detachments). This subversion occurred between between 20 February and the end of June 1942 at which point the Partisans in eastern Bosnia were in terrible shape and had to withdraw to western Bosnia. From that point on, I am not aware of any source that indicates any cooperation between Partisans and Chetniks. I might also note that two Chetnik detachments that cooperated with the Partisans in western Serbia in September/October 41 in fighting the Germans (led by Martinovic and Zecevic) went over to the Partisans shortly thereafter (Tomasevich p.141 & 145). So, I don't consider November 1941 to be a line in the sand. If I had one, it would probably be June 1942. How about we put something together that captures this complexity and see if we can get some agreement on it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was indeed aware of the defection of Partisan detachments to the Chetniks in Bosnia, but I was not aware that this was preceded by a period of cooperation. Nevertheless, what I would call those events as a whole is subversion into the Chetniks, rather than cooperation. We must be very careful to distinguish between defection from one movement into the other (which was a widespread phenomenon), and cooperation between the two warring movements (which only seems to have occurred on that one occasion). Indeed, whatever we call it, it seems rather a short-term and small exception to the rule. My problem with the Nuujinn version is that it inescapably implies this Chetnik-Partisan cooperation was war-spanning phenomenon depending on the Chetnik detachment in question, with a sort of misleading "Bad Collaborating Chetniks" vs "Good pro-Partisan Chetniks" dichotomy. What Nuujinn states, without any additional elaboration, is that "some Chetnik detachments cooperated with the Partisans".

Cooperation between the movements, as we have apparently established, was terminated after November 1941 (when they became enemies) - with a few exceptions, and brief exceptions at that. In all objectivity, in spite of admittedly being proven technically wrong in my assertion, I question whether this caveat is at all necessary in the lede. It will be difficult to explain properly without introducing several new sentences. That said, if we're ok with expanding the lede with a few sentences on their relationship with the Partisans, I suppose it could be done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a caveat along the lines of 'with a few brief exceptions' (if that is what you are suggesting) be included for the sake of NPOV. If we can get agreement on that here and it is supported by more detail in body of the article, I don't see any significant difficulty. On the other hand, I would also accept a couple more sentences in the lede to flesh out the Chetniks relationship with the Partisans a bit more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then, agreed. That is indeed what I was suggesting. I have to say, nice work getting to the bottom this. Do you have any comments on other points above? Particularly the adjectives which seem likely to be a disputed point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the black/white dichotomy in regard to the Chetniks to which you refer is entirely your creation, and has nothing to do with what I would like to see in this article. As I have said, the phrase to which I object the most is "ever increasing", and I have yet to see a source for that. One problem I see is your insistence that we treat the Chentiks as "The Chetniks", as if they were a homogeneous group under a unified command, and I do not see that as the case. You also keep using the word "detachment", which is not a word I choose to use, as many Chetniks were formed as groups or bands acting independently. And if you continue to engage in personal attacks such as your repeated assertions of edit warring, I will take appropriate action.

Peacemaker, in regards to Buisson, I believe that is a source the JJG found. There are some french copies in the US, I've requested a copy through interlibrary loan. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is not polite to respond to someone's post without reading it. The incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration is a basic fact. As I have said three time already, you yourself actually brought forth a source that describes the Chetnik collaboration as a "progressive" phenomenon, meaning "increasing in extent or severity". Milazzo himself states on p.182 that "[the Chetnik movement was] progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities". The term the source uses is, I admit, more neutral, but the fact being described is very basic and beyond dispute.

• As for "The Chetniks", as you put it, we shall continue to use that term in the exact same manner as the sources do. I am not concerned with your own interpretations of "NPOV". In other words, we shall emphasize the heterogeneity of the movement in accordance with the sources, no more and no less. Since the exact level of said heterogeneity is in dispute, and differs in description and emphasis. Ramet, Tomasevichm, and Milazzo apparently, are all comfortable with referring to the Mihailovic Chetniks as a whole as "The Chetniks" when describing their collaboration. You have Milazzo up there, and here's Ramet for another example (p.145)

"Both the Chetniks' political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it 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 homogenous Greater Serbian state, 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."

• "Detachment" is a term used to translate the Serbo-Croatian word "odred", as in "Četnički odred". Its not a very good translation: "odred" does not really mean "detachment", the word does not imply the unit is "detached" from anything, and is very hard to translate accurately (perhaps "medium to small military unit" conveys the meaning better). But, again, we shall use it in such a way as defined by sources.

I did not write a single "personal attack" (see WP:NPA), and should you continue to make such baseless accusations for the sake of winning points in an argument, you may find yourself reported in turn for such constant and incessant slander (see WP:WIKILAWYERING). In future, if you have any real issues with a backing in policy, then please bring them up on my talkpage and keep the discussion here at least loosely focused on content. Though I suggest you bring forth some sources that support your position instead. You have not responded to most of the issues. Do I take it they are resolved? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You've made repeated accusations against me and others, here and elsewhere of tag teaming you and edit warring, and I regard those as "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." You've already reported me once this week--please, by all means, if you think I'm slandering you, do so again. And you may assume whatever you like, but as I've said, I'm busy in RL.

Yes, sources refer to the chetniks as the chetniks, but the cheniks were neither uniform nor homogeneous, and bands on the ground were often out of contact with their leadership and often worked for their own local goals. Ramet refers to the Chetniks as polycephaleous: "But by its very nature, the Chetnik movement was polycepaholous. thus even while some Chetnik leaders entered into collaborative relations with the Italaian and with the Nedic government, others--for example, those in Basnaska Krajina--'avoided any cooperation with the occupation regime'(207) Moreover, even where local Cheninks did collaborate, they did so on their own terms, not necessarily accomodating their activity to the priorities of their arms suppliers." And I note that in the quote you provided above, Milazzo uses the phrase "portions of the Chetnik movement". There's no doubt that collaboration did occur, but need to take care that it not be characterized here in a way that is not supported by sources. Discussing the events of 1943 Milazzo points out: Although the overall trend was toward collaboration, enough Chetnik groups made deals with, went over to the Partisans, or continued the old pattern of raids on nearby Croat and Muslim civilians to keep the occupation authorities permanently suspicious of all Serb leaders. As already indicated, the local heads often chose collaboration or made an armistice of sorts with the Germans only after they were forced to. Furthermore, although many individual armed groups came to terms with the occupation regime, collaborators of long standing, like Uros Drenovic, failed to reassert sort of central any sort of central direction.(57) Many armed detachements simply dissolved or pursued independent courses of action. In the vicinity of the Romanije Mountains, the Chetniks split up into pro- and anti-Partisan groups;(58) (Milazzo, p. 149) Milazzo suggests that even late in the war, neither the German nor the Chetniks were full and willing collaborations, and each used the other on a limited basis to achieve their own goals: The Chetnik leadership as long as it could hovered between resistance and collaboration. Mihailovic's subordinates in Serbia tried to come to terms with Nedic and Ljotic and even cooperated occasionally with the Germans against the Partisans, but Mihailovic would go no farther than calling off hostilities against the Germans and officially maintained an anti-Axis stand. As a result most of the officer's formations received no appreciable aid from the Germans, and the movement remained militarily helpless throughout the summer of 1944. The German command in Belgrade continued to stress that the Chetnik "movement is and remains hostile" and prohibited measures contributing to "even the partial renewal of the Mihailovic movement." Arms deliveries were to he made only "in very small quantities and "on a purely local basis."(35) (Milazzo, p. 170) We need to capture that fluidity and protean nature of the ebb and flow of resistance and collabaration--systematic and enduring yes, ever increasing, no, unless a source that directly supports that characterization can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you done ignoring Milazzo with regard to the progressive nature of Chetnik collaboration? Nothing above can even loosely be interpreted as contradicting that fact in any way, I hope you realize. "Ever-increasing" are my own words, I assume they can be viewed as biased in some way, but "progressive" is Milazzo. Chetniks were indeed being "progressively drawn into collaboration", and that statement is directly supported.

• The Chetniks. I am not seeing any basis for discussion or dispute here. I do not challenge the fact that the Chetniks were heterogeneous to a degree, but I believe you are trying to over-emphasize it. Why "over-emphasize"? Because you are suggesting we emphasize it where the sources, by and large, do not emphasize it. I propose, however, that the solution may be to use the phrase "collaboration within the Chetnik movement", rather than "collaboration of the Chetnik movement". But, as you yourself state (and Milazzo) in you lede draft, it must be made clear that this was a widespread, "systematic and extensive" phenomenon, involving the majority of the movement "within" which it was occurring. "Most Chetnik groups collaborated with the Axis to one degree or another" were your words I believe (deleted by User:FkpCascais).

• Chetnik-German collaboration as a phenomenon was hardly "protean", I disagree there completely. Nota bene: your last Milazzo quote is talking about the Chetnik leadership, not the movement as a whole. The whole thing can be described in one sentence: "they collaborated, but they didn't like it". Yes, the Germans got them with both the carrot and the stick ("collaborate and you get arms and supplies to fight the Partisans, you get to control your territories, but turn on us and you'll get wiped out for good"). And yes they were "in theory" opposed to them, but crucially, and this what we are talking about here - in practice the Chetnik movement collaborated with Nazi Germany. "The overall trend was toward collaboration."
  Nuujinn, this was officially the military of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (up until 1944 almost). Generally, one's army does not collaborate with the Nazi occupation of your country, that's engaged, to boot, in industrial mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of its civilians. Put you efforts at "relativization" into perspective.

And Nuujinn: I made no comments on personal behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can source Tomasevich for the word 'gradual' applied to overall Chetnik collaboration. I will hunt it up and post it in context here later today. Perhaps that is a word we can agree on. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I supose the intention is to present the collaboration as increasing in time (as if they started as resistance and ended collaborating more and more), but that is wrong. We all know that the peak of collaboration of Chetniks was with Italians, and that was more intense in the second quarter of the war, and remind all that Italians capitullated in September 1943, 2 years before the end of the war. Chetniks didn´t ever engaged in such level of collaboration as had with Italians with any Axis forces after 1943. These facts make any description of "progressive", "ever-increasing", "gradual", "growing" or anything similar, wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that I can see (if that was what we agreed) it could not be described in that way in respect of the Italians from November 1941 until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and then described in a different way for one or more periods after that. However, I might add that collaboration must surely include that with Axis-installed or supported quisling regimes such as Nedic's Serbia and the NDH as well as the formal Axis countries of Germany, Italy and their ally Bulgaria. The collaboration with the NDH in the German zone is described as 'an indirect form of collaboration' by Tomasevich, as Direktor observed some time ago. This is really complex, and I consider that broad sweeping statements either way will not cut it. We need to reflect the complexity yet achieve a NPOV. I would rather see a formulation in the lede that reflects the complexity and doesn't get into too much detail about who was up who and for what. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. I have to add that even if you don't personally agree with the words in that list, that matters not one iota on WP if they are supported by quality sources (some of us appear to be getting closer to limited agreement on some words from the sources, but we are obviously not there yet). I've noticed you write the word 'wrong' in your posts when disagreeing with another editor, usually preceded by some unsourced 'facts'. It is my understanding that it is a WP requirement that your contention of 'wrongness' be backed by sources (I'm new here and if there is a policy that says you don't have to do this, I'd be happy to read it and will pull my head in). Common sense dictates that on an article as disputed as this one, 'wrong' just doesn't cut it, and in fact is potentially a method of stonewalling any consensus between other editors without progressing the discussion in any substantive way. If you want your contentions to be taken seriously, it is my understanding that WP makes you responsible for citing sources to support them. I note that Nuujiin has discussed Milazzo in some detail above, and that Direcktor and Nuujiin are at odds about what parts of Milazzo might be used, and whether they are in context etc. I have indicated my support for some of Milazzo and Tomasevich. However, I don't have a sense of what sources you personally are relying on for your interpretations. I don't know if there is a rule about personal courtesy on WP, but I believe citing sources to support your contentions should be one of them, and personally would appreciate it if you extended that courtesy to me. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, there is a core policy regarding WP:CIVILITY, but that doesn't cover providing references to support arguments. I think it is accurate to say that editors are free to express personal opinions, but that those may ultimately be ignored if they are not supported by references from reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V, which in essence states very clearly that challenged assertions must be supported with sources. Simply repeating them incessantly can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and may warrant some sort of mild intervention. If I recall, Nuujinn, you and Sunray responded to PRODUCER challenging your source (sans support) with some considerable aggression. Suffices to say such behavior can be very annoying in a factual debate. FkpCascais is not really discussing with posts of the above sort, but is merely stating his opinions over and over and over again, as is his wont. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, Nuujinn, you and Sunray responded to PRODUCER challenging your source (sans support) with some considerable aggression. Nothing about content, just snarky comment. Meh. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was answering the question on policy, as your response seemed somewhat inadequate. The purpose of the post was not to address content directly, so I am not impressed by your realization of that. As for "snarky", well, anyone can see PRODUCER was all but sanctioned by your admin friend for repeating an unsupported opinion on one of your sources. Call it what you will. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the article and cease making comments about editors' conduct, motives, desires, etc. If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about another editor's conduct, avail yourself of the appropriate venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I beleave we already agreed that the strongest link of Chetniks was with Italians. Do we need to discuss this too, I mean, are you challenging that? I am discussing in good faith, so were you initially. We are free to interpret sources and mention conclusions. If we agree we should not loose more time with that, but if you challenge anything I said I will gladly bring sources for it, just tell me what exactly you challenge from my words? With regard to collaboration description, as your own words say, we should avoid oversimplification of these complex issues, so by your own words we can conclude that simplifiying Chetniks collaboration to "growing" or anything similar, is wrong (yes, wrong, because it doesn´t apply to the entire period of WWII as it looks in the version edited by DIREKTOR). Btw, collaboration with NDH occured in mid war period, with Germans was never strong, and, collaboration with Bulgarians? I am unaware that Mihailovic had contacts with Bulgarians (specially not "friendly" ones), but perhaps you know something I don´t? FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn. Again: bring up your concerns on my talkpage, or report me, but cease trying to win points with these constant slanderous "warnings" and "accusations".

@FkpCascais. It has been explained to you, several times. You are challenging what Milazzo and Tomasevich say regarding the progressive increase in Chetnik collaboration? then do not tell us what you think, but instead provide sources that directly contradict them. There is quite plainly no "oversimplification", since the sources are being quoted directly. Be careful to avoid bringing up your own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and do not draw your own conclusions as to what "must have been" because of "this" or "that".

We cannot "conclude" anything (WP:OR), there is no "oversimplification", nothing is taken "out of context", the sources are referring to the entire World War II period, are not "selectively represented" etc. etc. These are nothing but rather obvious excuses you are using since you have no sources (as per usual), and are trying to stall, disrupt and otherwise hinder the entry of sourced facts you do not like through empty "demagoguery". As has invariably been the case with every single negative fact about the Chetniks for the past several years.

This has been going on for several days now. I must insist that you either bring up the "phantom sources" that are in direct contradiction to Milazzo or Tomasevich now - or cease WP:DISRUPTING this discussion. Otherwise I propose, as on Talk:Draža Mihailović, that all unsourced assertions such as those by yourself be simply ignored, as they are very much detrimental to the progression of discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, is this a joke or you decided to ignore all we discussed for 2 years on mediation? Are you really challenging the fact that the major collaboration occured with the Italians? What I am saying is not OR. We went trough this, remember? If pure facts (and sourced, as there are plenty of sources about Italian/Chetnik relation, and not comparable to the Chetnik/Axis post1943 relation) contradict some statement, sorry, but something is wrong there. Anyway, you don´t have more sources backing that, neither events confirm it. You just can´t grab one source, take it to extreme in interpretation, and demand it as a holy bible. Sorry, be objective.

Btw, it was Peacemaker who this time brought the idea that we should avoid oversimplification, so seems you have not been following the discussion. I would like to hear the opinion of Peacemaker and of other participants if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I apologise if you understood me wrong by saying the word "wrong". I never meant to say that you were wrong as a personal remark, I just try to be more direct in these discussions so we could more easily come to conclusions and move forword. It is just that events in time in this case don´t seem to come together so such a conclusion could be made. You can´t ask me for a source saying "Describing Chetnik collaboration with Axis as growing is wrong.", that is not the point. We, suposedly all, read and re-read all the sources used here, and if I recall well, DIREKTOR made a collection of all sources with any single mention of collaboration, and I don´t recall anything indicating a time-period growing relation, rather than this source, which seems to be used by some users to give a romantisized impression that Chetniks "started as resistance (as that really can´t be refuted), but ended up as collaborators!". FkpCascais (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You are saying "I judge that because collaboration with the Italians did not occur after the Italian capitulation, the sources are wrong(!) in saying that collaboration in general was increasing overall throughout the war". This is the very definition and a textbook example of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, i.e. "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". You are not a scholar and do not get to draw conclusions and write generalized "assessments" - in any shape or form. Second of all, if sources say the Chetniks were "progressively drawn into collaboration", this is what we are going to write, and your claims of "extreme interpretation" in quoting a source directly(!) are very obvious nonsense. You are NOT called upon to judge whether word-renowned published experts are "wrong" or not in their description.

So to put it plainly, Wikipedia policy forbids you to draw any conclusions of your own, whether they be based on Operation Halyard, the Italian capitulation, or whatever else you may happen to think of (and I'm sure you have other contingencies). And especially if said WP:OR "conclusions" are in opposition to what the sources say. If you wish to challenge the conclusion in the sources, you need a directly contradicting, overall assessment of Chetnik collaboration from a source. If you do not have one (and you don't) - its "case closed". Get over it please, stop being disruptive, and spare us the trouble of explaining this to you for the fourth time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies all, my ISP is playing up, and my iPhone doesn't 'do' editing, so I may not be on here with anything substantive for a couple of more days. Just in case anyone was wondering where I'd got to... Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Back. Gotta love the personal hotspot on the iPhone... and the iPad. Anyway, I'm afraid I've missed out on putting in my 'two cents worth' on a few things, so you're just going to have to bear with me (or ignore me). I'm not a fan of long posts, so I'll try to put these in the right sections and be brief.

@FkpCascais: just for the sake of completeness, your question re: DM and any relationship he had with the Bulgarians is a complex question and should probably be dealt with in the DM article. However, as I mentioned the Bulgarians here, I feel I should be prepared to back up my assertions as far as the Chetniks (not DM) are concerned. In Jul 44, at least 10,000 Chetniks under the command of Dragutin Keservic and Radoslav Racic cooperated with German, Bulgarian and Serbian Nedic trops during Operation Trumpf in southern Serbia, and were supplied with ammunition and some arms (Tomasevich Vol 1 p408). A significant undertaking by any standard.

also, as far as Chetnik collaboration with the Germans was concerned, if we just take Serbia as an example, there were four formal agreements concluded between them in late 1943, one of which extended into February 1944. The longest standing and most comprehensive was between the Commander in Chief of south-east Europe (von Weichs) and Colonel Jevrem Simic, Inspector of all Chetnik forces. Pretty high level agreements, not some local informal arrangement. (Tomasevich Vol 1 p321-323. Aside from these formal agreements, there were several modus vivendi agreements which carried on from this time into 1944, German liaison officers were posted to several Chetnik headquarters in Serbia (including that of General Miroslav Trifunovic (overall commander of DM Chetnik forces in Serbia), including one (Major Weyel) who coordinated the operations of the Racic, Keserovic and Kalabic Chetnik detachments against the Partisans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor. I have reverted your most recent edit because you removed the reference to the 'Ravna Gora Movement' which has been discussed here. I've seen no opposition to it from you or anyone else to this point. Let us know what your issue is with it, and we can discuss. It is sourced from Tomasevich and I believe it is a relevant and useful inclusion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First line of lede

The current version is:

• The Chetniks or the Chetnik movement or Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (Serbian: Четници, Četnici, Turkish çete pronounced [tʃɛ̂tniːtsi]) were a Serbian nationalist and royalist paramilitary organization operating in the Balkans before and during World Wars, mostly known for their participation in the Yugoslav Front of World War II.

I suggest we consider changing it to:

• Chetnik is a name chosen by a number of Serbian nationalist or royalist militia or paramilitary organizations operating in the Balkans during the 20th century. Although the term has been used to designate a variety of groups, military and civilian, throughout the century, it is most closely associated with groups formed during World War II, which primarily engaged in military activities against the Partisans.

The notion is that this wording opens up more modern usages of the term, as well the earliest usages which predate WWI. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea sounds very good. Some minor issues could be Chetnik which is a singular of Chetniks, thus never used for a group (something like Marines, you´ll never start the article by saying Marine..., so perhaps we could leave it in plural? Then, what you think if we change in the last sentence in the part talking about Partisans the idea of "primarly engaged" by "rivalry" perhaps? (weren´t they primarly engaged in fighting Axis? And then they switched their attention towards Partisans...). FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a mistake imho to try an rework the first line on its own. Rather, lets have a go in this section at the entire first paragraph. Mind you, the only problem with the old first line is that someone butchered it by adding "or Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", no doubt for POV reasons (the version restored by FkpCascais was the one mangled and maimed by various Serbian IPs and and new users a while ago). WP:LEDE tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the lede should be a summary of the article. Nota bene: the Chetniks did not cease to exist between the three wars they participated in, but continued as two civilian organizations.

• Chetniks, or the Chetnik movement ([Четници, Četnici] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), Turkish çete pronounced [tʃɛ̂tniːtsi]), were Serbian nationalist and royalist paramilitary organizations from the first half of the 20th century. The Chetniks were formed as a Serbian resistance against the Ottoman Empire in 1904, and participated in the First Balkan War, World War I, and World War II. Between the wars, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they functioned in the form of two civilian organizations. The name is today most closely associated with the Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army, the World War II movement of Draža Mihailović, which was later renamed into the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО).

Then the second paragraph, one we've worked it out, can handle the Mihailovic Chetniks with all the "who did they fight" issues. Somewhere below, in the last paragraph perhaps (corresponding with the article's layout), we can add that "Several modern Serbian paramilitary organizations, formed in the 1990s after the collapse of Yugoslavia, chose the name 'Chetniks', and consider themselves as the continuation of the Chetnik legacy". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Various Serbian IP´s? Which ones? The version I restored is the one from Nuujinn´s draft (and Nuujinn is vary far from being a Serbian IP)... Please direktor stop this pharse of an "army" (or, something) of Serbian users as I am the only (and quite lonely) Serbian here... FkpCascais (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is Nuujin's draft, FkpCascais. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you altered my proposal, I've restored it, please do not alter my posts again. I want to work on the lede one line at a time, since we have been at loggerheads thus far. You are certainly free to participate or not, but I would like to hear from other editors. I have added a bit about civilian groups per your concern. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to participate, Nuujinn. Now if you'll allow me to point out, it makes no sense whatsoever to discuss one sentence at a time, since the paragraph represents a particular topic. We may be "at loggerheads" - but not about the first sentence, or indeed, the first paragraph. It would be good of you to remember that the only difficult issues are 1) your removal of all mention of Chetnik ethnic cleansing and Greater-Serbianism (which Tomasevich describes in great detail as their primary objective), and 2) collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not allowing anything DIREKTOR, please don't twist my words. I'm trying to initiate a discussion amoung editors regarding the first line--from your response I take it that you are completely opposed to that attempt, and that's fine, but please do not attempt the derail the discussion before it it can begin. The first line could be a simple definition of the word. You brought up one particular objection and I tried to address it, if you have others I'd be glad to hear about them, but opposing the idea of drafting a line seems excessive. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted DIRKETOR's last edit as it is not based in any of the dicussions taken place here. I do not believe we have consensus for that version. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

These [3][4][5][6][7] are your edits entering non-consensus changes into the article in spite of talkpage opposition and by edit-warring. It seems pretty obvious we're past folowing WP:BRD on this article - thanks almost exclusively to you. That said, we can begin to do so once more if you'd consent to keeping the status quo version up. The problem is of course, you do not like the status quo version of years past [8], and you want your changes to remain on top.

The first paragraph is perfectly good and accurate, I see no reason for you delete it.

I am opposed to discussing the first sentence alone, since that simply makes no sense and is impractical. Furthermore, I am appalled at your evasive behavior regarding the remainder of the disputed points. Do I need to post them again? Your position lacks sources so instead of adjusting your position and compromising - you proclaim us to be "at loggerheads" and start trying to impose another, absurdly restricted topic of discussion? FkpCascais at least tried something with his OR, you just fell silent and let the discussion die down. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, be as appalled as you care to, and post whatever you like. But if some of us would like to work on a draft of the lede by working on one sentence at a time, I would ask you to not interfere with those efforts even if you care not to participate. I think that's a good way to try to move forward, and others might as well.

Yes, we are at loggerheads, as you've rejected out of hand a number of compromises I have put forward. And I've provided sources for what I've suggested, even though you refuse to acknowledge that. Your argument regarding status quo doesn't hold much weight, since consensus can change, and the lede has been in flux the last few months. And I ask again that you cease your constant accusations implying that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is often vandalized, sources are often removed or the text they support changed without consensus or adherence to their position - and you are a goodly part of that "flux". You can call it whatever you like, but the sourced status quo remains that which it was for years now.
• You had not put forward any "compromises" whatsoever, and had not adjusted your position to the sources in the slightest. When confronted with references you had simply fallen silent, and started this new thread(!). This is no way to discuss: kindly state your positions on the five disputed points, and be sure to enclose sources that directly and unambiguously support them as I'm sure we've all heard quite enough WP:OR for this month. Should you not do so at last, what other alternative is there than to consider them resolved? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Please note I directly addressed one of your concerns in the draft first line above. Please note that I've put up more than one version of the lede. If you wish to ask me a question, do so politely and I'll answer, but I'm not going to engage in the usual endless walls of text that discussions in which you are involved tend to spiral. Implying that other editors are engaging in OR or vandalism is not civil, please cease. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Meh"? :D Alright Nuujinn, I know how to use the copy-paste function: Once again, there are serious inaccuracies in the text, and serious issues with the omission of assessments of Chetnik collaboration and resistance by some of the (quote) "best" sources available to us.

• Chetnik collaboration was "progressive" (Milazzo p.182) and "gradual" (Tomasevich), i.e. increasing through time. Unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it. This fact should to be mentioned in the lede (as it had been for several years).
• Chetnik resistance activities were described as "marginal" (also Milazzo p.182). Equally, unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it.
• Various adjectives used by authors to directly describe Chetnik collaboration are "systematic" (Tomasevich and Ramet), "extensive" (Ramet), "enduring" (Tomasevich), "tactical" (Milazzo), and "selective" (Milazzo) (and, if you will, "hopelessly compromising"). I would suggest using "systematic and selective", with Ramet's assessment also included in some way, so as to cover all the sources.

The perceived problems with Nuujinn's proposal are as follows:

• Chetniks and Partisans did not cooperate anywhere or at any time after they became enemies on 1 November 1941. This is a grave error, and the text should not suggest anything of the sort.
• Nuujinn's draft states that the most Chetnik detachments "collaborated independently". "Independently" is, from what sources we have seen, Nuujinn's own assessment on the nature of Chetnik collaboration, and is seriously contradicted by sources such as Tomasevich, which bring forth, for the best example, Draza Mihailovic's own personal admission that he commanded such "independently" collaborating Chetniks in joint operations with Italian and German forces during Fall Weiss.

And this is the proposed modification of your text:

Although the Chetniks were the first of the two resistance organizations to be formed in Yugoslavia, they were never an entirely homogeneous movement. Some groups engaged in marginal(Milazzo) resistance activities, however, most Chetnik groups collaborated with the Axis to one degree or another in order to fight the Partisans, whom they viewed as their primary enemy, by establishing modus vivendi or operating as "legalised" auxiliary forces under Axis control. Thus, over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetniks were progressively drawn into collaboration agreements(Milazzo, Tomasevich I) first with the Nedic forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in Montenegro and occupied Dalmatia, with some of the Ustase forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.(Tomasevich I p.196) While Chetnik collaboration reached "extensive and systematic"(Tomasevich I p.246; Ramet p.145) proportions, the Chetniks' themselves referred to this "policy of collaboration"(Ramet p.145) as "using the enemy".(Tomasevich I p.196)

I shall now politely curtsey, and ask you to be so kind as to respond to the points, lest we consider them resolved... meho. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day all, I just wanted to air my perspective on this.

Firstly, as far as the Balkan Wars are concerned in this article, Chetnik detachments (I am fairly reliably informed by a mate who has a Serbian background but is in the Australian Army, that the most appropriate English translation is 'companies' ie about 100-120 soldiers), also fought in the 2nd Balkan War against the Bulgarians. An overall source for this sentence in the first para of the lede is Tomasevich Vol 1 p116-117, in case anyone wants one. I'll add it myself once I get access to a real computer.

Secondly, I would not agree to 'rivalry' instead of 'primarily engaged' as proposed by FkpCascais. It just isn't supported by the sources.

Thirdly, I don't support the 'status quo' version of the lede linked by Direktor. In my view, it just does not reflect the complexity involved, and I am happy to provide sources once I have full computer access again. Please call me out on this as necessary.

Fourthly, @Nuujinn. I have significant issues with your proposed redraft of the 1st sentence of the lede which I will detail shortly. I believe it should stand as it is at present. I agree with Direktor that it should be dealt with by paragraph rather than by sentence. Each paragraph has a theme, and I consider we should try to come to a consensus on each paragraph/theme rather than end up with a disjointed approach as a result of going sentence by sentence. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. You needn't worry about sourcing the sentences in the lede--everything needs to be sourced, but anything in the lede should be dealt with in the main body as well, and having the reference there is fine. Also, we're not in a hurry--this article was part of a nearly two year mediation process involving a number of editors, the outcome of which I think it is fair to say DIREKTOR found less than satisfactory, and I doubt we'll be finished with it anytime soon. The article is a mess, and under the best of conditions it would take a very long time to sort it out. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, please do not further proliferate your gross misconceptions about the Wikipedia mediation process, and, more specifically, do not suggest the existence of phantom "outcomes" when there were none to speak of. You are merely trying to create an ethereal aura of "legitimacy" for the section which you wrote (alone). We are at all times free to change, edit, modify and refactor any text on this project. And the fact is, your text is very far from a fair representation of facts.

• Peacemaker, there's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem there. "Cheta" later came to mean "company" in the Yugoslav and Serbian army, replacing "kumpanija" (which was German in origin and therefore undesirable), but I believe that originally the "chetas" were not companies as such. To be sure, today in Serbia "cheta" means "company" (though not so elsewhere in ex-Yu, e.g. satnija in Croatia), hence the information provided by your friend, but I believe the usage of the term in that capacity is rather derived from the Chetniks than vice versa, i.e., I do not think that for the Chetniks' "cheta" was considered to be anything like a strictly defined military unit. I could be wrong, though.
• Agreed.
• Naturally. I also do not support the status quo version, Peacemaker, it was simply my suggestion that the status quo version be restored while the discussions are on over here, to prevent any edit-warring.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Blanked sections & deleted sources

Blanked text

- Ethnic cleansing -

Draža Mihajlović's infamous "Instrukcije" ("Instructions") of 1941, ordering the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks, Croats, and others

See also: Ethnic cleansing

As part of his policies regarding the restoration of the monarchy and the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia and within, a Greater Serbia, and also as retaliation for the massacres suffered by Serbs at the hands of the Ustaše and the Balli Kombëtar, the Chetnik supreme commander Draža Mihailović issued the following "Instructions" to his commanders on 20 December 1941:

“ The mission of our units is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the King Peter II;
2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Bačka;
3. The struggle for the incorporation into our social structure of those non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, and Carinthia), as well as Bulgaria and northern Albania with Shkodra;
4. The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;
5. The creation of direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Bosniak population from Sandžak, and the Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6. The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;
7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

There may be no collaboration with the communists [Partisans], as they are fighting against the Dynasty and in favor of socialist revolution. Balli Kombëtar [Albanians], SS Handschar [Bosniaks], and Ustaše [Croats] are to be treated in accordance with their merit for the horrendous crimes against our population, i.e. they are to be turned over to the People's Court. The Croats living on the territory under Italian occupation [Dalmatians] are to be treated based on their disposition at the given moment.

”

The exact number of Bosniak, Croat and other civilians murdered under the direct command of Mihailović's Chetniks has never been established. In his book Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941-1945, historian Šemso Tucaković estimated that out of 150,000 Bosniaks who lost their lives in World War II, some 100,000 were murdered by Chetniks. He also listed at least 50,000 Bosnian Muslim names directly known to have been killed by Chetniks. According to World War II historian Vladimir Žerjavić, approximately 29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats were killed by Chetniks during World War II. Žerjavić's figures have also been cited as too conservative and figures of up to 300,000 non-Serbs have been suggested.

Some of the major World War II Chetnik massacres against ethnic Croats and Bosniaks include:

• April 15, 1941, Knin, Grahovo, Sinj - 100 civilians killed in horrible manner, victims were cut off their ears, hands, and eyes before being killed;
• July 1941, Herzegovina (Bileća, Stolac) - approximately 1,150 civilians killed;
• August 1941, Pogrom in Krnjeuša
• December 1941/January 1942, eastern Bosnia (Foča, Goražde) - approximately 2,050 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Bukovica) - approximately 1,000 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia (Ustikolina, Jahorina) - approximately 2,500 civilians killed;
• September 1942, southern Dalmatia (Makarska) - approximately 900 civilians killed;
• October 1942, Herzegovina (Prozor) - approximately 2,500 civilians killed;
• January 1943, Sandžak (Bijelo Polje) - approximately 1,500 civilians killed;
• February 1943, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Čajniče, Pljevlja) - 9,200-20,000 civilians killed. While Chetniks themselves admitted killed over 9,000 people, other estimates put the number in 20,000 people killed. It was the largest single Chetnik massacre of World War II.

Draža Mihailović's Chetniks committed numerous crimes against the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak. For example, in his briefing to the Serb General Draža Mihailović, the Chetnik Commander Pavle Đurišić reported on January 10, "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". According to another report by Đurišić dated February 13, "Chetniks killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children; Chetnik losses in the action were 22 killed and 32 wounded".

According to the verdict of Mihailović's trial Serbian Chetniks attacked Serbian Partisan villages and systematically murdered villagers. For example, on the night between 20 and 21 December 1943, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Miodrag Palošević and Major Sveta Trifković, the Chetniks attacked a Serbian village of Vranić, south-west of Belgrade, and slaughtered 72 civilians, among whom were two small children.

- Massacres -

The Chetniks directed mass terror towards primarily three groups: the Muslims, the Croats, and the Partisans. Between October 1942 and February 1943 the Chetniks perpetrated some of the most extreme terror and practiced it on the largest scale in areas under Italian control and security. In Yugoslavia and in all the Balkan countries there was an inclination to use terror as a political tool. The South Slavs were under foreign rule for centuries, frustrated with their failed attempts of freedom and increased oppression, they grew familiar with the use of terror as a way of dealing with enemies. By 1941, there were additional grievances which added to the long antagonism between the Christians (especially Orthodox) and the Muslims. Centuries-old religious and political antagonism between Christians and Muslims was agitated when the First World War broke out and many Bosnian Muslims joined the Austro-Hungarian Schutzkorps, which took part in anti-Serb activities, and again after April 1941 when many Muslims joined the Ustašas and were participants in atrocities against Serbs. The Chetniks thus viewed the Muslims as a traditional enemy, and only after mid-1943, when the potential political value of the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak was viewed as important to the Chetniks, did they stop carrying out acts of terror against the Muslims. Mutual grievances existed between the Croats and the Serbs especially. The Serbs, after the invasion, had increased grievances from the treasonable activities of some Croats and from the persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. Both the Chetniks and Ustaše drew on religious and national differences and had their ideology fixated on the thousand-year-old antagonism that existed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Chetniks used mass terror against the Partisans, their principal enemy, regardless of nationality or religion at every opportunity beginning in late fall of 1941.

The exact number of Muslim, Croat and other civilians murdered under the direct command of Mihailović's Chetniks has never been established. In his book Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941-1945, historian Šemso Tucaković estimated that out of 150,000 Muslims who lost their lives in World War II, some 100,000 were murdered by Chetniks. He also listed at least 50,000 Bosnian Muslim names directly known to have been killed by Chetniks. According to World War II historian Vladimir Žerjavić, approximately 29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats were killed by Chetniks during World War II. Žerjavić's figures have also been cited as too conservative and figures of up to 300,000 non-Serbs have been suggested.

Mihailović was captured on 13 March 1946 by agents of the Yugoslav security agency (OZNA) and charged on 47 counts. The trial lasted from 10 June to 15 July. The court found him guilty on 8 counts, including crimes against humanity and high treason and sentenced to death by firing squad on 15 July. The Presidium of the National Assembly rejected the clemency appeal on 16 July. He was executed together with nine other officers in the early hours of 18 July 1946, in Lisičiji Potok, about 200 meters from the former Royal Palace, and buried in an unmarked grave on the same spot. His main prosecutor was Miloš Minić, later Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Yugoslav Government.

- Against Muslims -

Đurišić's report of 13 February 1943 reporting the massacres of Muslims in the counties of Čajniče and Foča in southeastern Bosnia and in the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak.

The Chetniks systemically massacred Muslims in villages that they captured. These actions were portrayed by the Chetniks as countermeasures against Muslim aggressive activities; however, all circumstances show that these massacres were committed in accordance with implementing Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 that ordered Chetnik commanders to ethnically cleanse Muslims (among others). The massacres were carried out in areas relatively untouched by the Ustaša genocide until spring of 1942 and were an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology behind the Chetnik movement.

These massacres reached their culmination in a genocidal campaign carried out in late autumn of 1941 in which the Italians handed over the towns of south-east Bosnia to the Chetniks to run as a puppet administration. The Chetniks, after their break with the Partisans, began their goal of creating a civilian and military government - the 'Provisional Administration for East Bosnia'. This goal was reached through talks held in November with the Italians which resulted in the Chetniks receiving the towns of Visegrád, Goražde, Foča and surrounding areas, from which NDH forces were compelled by the Italians to withdraw from. After the Chetniks gained control of Goražde on 29 November 1941, they began a massacre of Home Guard prisoners and NDH officials that became a systematic massacre of the local Muslim civilian population. Several hundred Muslims were murdered and their bodies were left hanging in the town or thrown into the Drina river. On 5 December 1941, the Chetniks received the town of Foča from the Italians and proceeded to massacre around five hundred Muslims. Additional massacres against the Muslims in the area of Foča took place in August 1942. In total, over two thousand people were killed in Foča. In early January, the Chetniks entered Srebrenica and killed around a thousand Muslim civilians in the town and in nearby villages. Around the same time the Chetniks made their way to Visegrád where deaths were reportedly in the thousands. Massacres continued in the following months in the region. In the village of Žepa alone about three hundred were killed in late 1941. In early January, Chetniks massacred fifty-four Muslims in Čelebić and burned down the village. On 3 March, the Chetniks burned forty-two Muslim villagers to death in Drakan.

Pavle Đurišić, the commander of Montenegrin Chetniks, was responsible for most operations that were carried out against Muslims, especially in Montenegro and Sandžak. In a briefing to the Mihailović, Đurišić reported on 10 January 1943, that "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" in the county of Bijelo Polje in Sandžak. In another report by Đurišić dated 13 February 1943, he reported that "Chetniks killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children" in the counties of Čajniče and Foča in southeastern Bosnia and in the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak. The total number of deaths caused by the anti-Muslim operations between January and February 1943 is estimated at 10,000. The casualty rate would have been higher had a great number of Muslims not already fled the area, most to Sarajevo, when the February action began.

- Against Croats -

The Chetniks used mass terror against the Croats. This included Serb-Croat mixed areas where the Ustaša carried out mass terror against the Serbs and the Chetniks against the Croats. One of the worst Chetnik outbursts against the Croat population of Dalmatia took place in early October 1942 in the village of Gata near Split, in which an estimated one hundred people were killed and many homes were burnt in a reprisal taken against the people of Gata and nearby villages for the destruction of some roads in the area and carried out on the Italians account.

- Against Partisans -

In Serbia, aside from a few terrorist acts carried out against the men of Nedić and Ljotić and Montenegrin separatists, terror was directed solely against the Partisans and their families and sympathizers, and was based only on ideological grounds. The goal, as repeatedly proven by Chetnik documents in general and specific orders, was for the complete destruction of the Partisans. The total number of Partisan victims will never be known. As indiscriminate terror against the Partisans was impossible since the Partisans and their sympathizers were living among other Serbs and Montenegrins. The Chetniks instead created lists of individuals that were to be liquidated. Special units known as "black trojkas" were trained and carried out these acts of terror. The standard method that was used in these liquidations, especially in rural areas, was through the use of a knife.

- References -

Discussion

The above is the mass of sourced text removed without talkpage consensus, along with its accompanying sources, by User:Nuujinn on 18 August 2011 [9]. It was replaced by Nuujinn's own (much briefer) draft Ethnic conflict and terror tactics which

• 1. deletes any mention of ethnic cleansing (a term very frequently used in sources), replacing it with the user's own term - "ethnic conflict"
• 2. deletes all reference to the controversial Instrukcije document, along with the accompanying images
• 3. generally deletes large amounts of data pertaining to Chetnik massacres and terror tactics against civilian populations as described in sources, replacing it with a select few (supposedly those the user found in the sources he preferred)

The sources and the text they support was removed by User:Nuujinn [10], when opposed the removal was pushed through by WP:EDIT-WARRING through the combined efforts of User:Nuujinn [11] and User:FkpCascais [12] [13] [14]. That the unilateral, opposed, and repeated removal of this much sourced, accurate text from a Wikipedia article has not been sanctioned in some way is a strange phenomenon indeed.

It is blatantly obvious, perhaps without even reading the deleted text, that truly massive amounts of well-sourced data, images, and references were blanked from this article. And this being exclusively information pertaining to war crimes perpetrated by units of the Chetnik movement against civilian populations. All without a viable explanation, or I should say, a viable excuse, that might justify the removal of information and disregarding of sources. This is contrary to numerous Wikipedia policies, as is explained in WP:NOBLANKING. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you know that this was done as part of the mediation process after long discussions, and I'm very sorry that you feel it is necessary to turn this into a personal matter. That's all I'll say about this in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Nuujinn. The mediation did not bring forth any such decision. Nor could it have, given the massive content blanking that would entail. The supposed "consensus" (essentially only among one side of this debate) only seems to have pertained to the Draza Mihailovic article. And indeed, while it may be conceivably explainable why all mention of ethnic cleansing was stricken from the text of that article, here it constitutes appalling WP:NPOV violations - as the term is not only present in virtually all modern publications (written after it was instituted), but "cleansing actions" (akcije ciscenja) was the term actually used bu the Chetniks themselves. It is nothing short of horrifying to see that Greater-Serbianism, the single primary objective of the Chetniks virtually synonymous with them, has been almost completely de-emphasized, that the Instrukcije have been stricken from all mention, and that numerous massacres, previously included in the text, have been censored from it. With the sources in mind, I must tell you this is not an acceptable situation, Nuujinn.

In short, it is necessary to restore the removed sourced information, which was stricken from the article. I do not propose your draft be altered, merely expanded with the above information in accordance with the supporting sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the mediation was not only about DM article, but all related, and the long discussions that took place there are not going to be repeated in every single article. With regard of the issues you (direktor) mention here, the proper mention (with all its controverses) of the Instrukcije is OK in my view, but your horrific section of how Chetniks were the most terrible butchers was probably the worste and most POV text ever seen on wikipedia... honestly. FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, did you checked your sources? You are using Ivo Omrčanin, a former NDH official (!!!). He blames Jews for the slaughter of Serbs and talks about it publically in the 1990s!!! Then you use bs:Enver Redžić (translation), an active Partisan who already in 1941 has started receving major communist condecorations (quite neutral ah?). Then we have hr:Zdravko Dizdar, a Croatian historian who wrote about "the labour movement somewhere in Croatia 1929-1941" and then within Tito Yugoslavia writes about "Chetnik crimes 1941-1945"... (he is still very active writing about Serbian crimes)... Ana Došen, another Croatian author... Oh, and Noel Malcolm as the cherry on the cake. Very neutral... Good job direk... Perhaps we should use a bit of Vojislav Šešelj to balance things... FkpCascais (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

..or you could balance it out, with some of your own research? :) Yes some of the sources are not acceptable, that's a fact, and you know I don't support the use of locally-published dribble, but most of the text there is sourced quite well, and some of the badly sourced text is unchallengable general knowledge.

As I said above, the well sourced information has to be restored. The Instrukcije need to be elaborated upon, and a their citation restored. The images, and the text they illustrate, need to be placed back in the article, etc. etc. The "Massacres" section is not "my section", I'm telling you again I did not write a single word of the above text. And, in spite of your colorful language, it does not depict the Chetniks as anything other than what they were, as it is very well sourced in its entirety - right down to the primary evidence listed in the publication. If you wish to challenge the inclusion of any of those massacres, you are, as always, free to provide sources which deny they occurred. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The article which is in place right now is sourced and edited in a quite balanced way. Your text (yes, yours because most of this was introduced by you as I already presented a diff) is not NPOV, uses unacceptable sources, deals about an issue already expanded on another section (created at mediation, you disagree with parts, so do I, so patience my friend, that is what mediation is about), resumingly, the text you propose is very very far from being remotely encyclopedic... PS: When Nuujinn initially agreed with some of your edits he was your favourite, as it is easily seen in discussions from that period, but now, after the mediation, when things are more clear you make many accusations towards him. You can´t act towards editors by simplifiying your relation to "agree, or disagree" with you. Apologies Nuujinn for mentioning you here, but this should stay in record as well. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway direktor, you just admited in your last post that the text you want to insert in the article has serios problems with sources. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind being mentioned, and I'm willing to answer to statements I have made. I do not disagree with all of the edits DIREKTOR has made--indeed, in putting together the initial draft for the Milhailovic article, I relied heavily on both his and JJG's versions. But this article appears to me to be terribly slanted against the Chetniks, and we need to adopt a nuanced approach. The situation was complicated, as the Chetniks engaged in both collaboration and resistance, and the extent and ratio of both of these activities varied with time. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You, Nuujinn, made a huge effort to bring balance to this article using the most reliable sources. It is all but fair to see you being treated in a hard way by other users personally involved in the subject. Even if I disagree with your draft here and there, It is evident an honest neutral approach from you, and I will allways try to help you as it is an encyclopedic and "workable" version. Direktor´s version just has too many issues to be worked out and unfortunatelly, by the tone as it is edited, becomes provocative and asks for nationalistic response, something I will gladly like to see avoided in these articles, as after all this is an encyclopedia, not a nationalists battleground. Despite all our divergences in the past, I must thank you for not giving up after all you have been dealing with here. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes whatever.. enough with the personal opinions please. The deleted content, the images and that text which is backed with reliable sources, has to be restored into the article (alongside the information entered by Nuujinn of course). Sourced information can only be countered with other sources, not with lots and lost of talk. I've started this thread to see whether there are some counter-sources that justified the deletion of the reliably sourced text from above. And if there are none, to discuss how best to integrate the two bodies of text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliably sourced text? You think by repeating yourself you´ll convince someone that a text partially written by war criminals and other involved authors is going to pass? Seems you don´t listen to what is being told... FkpCascais (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not dream of stealing your method of argument, Fkp. If you would direct your gaze to the "- References -" subsection above, I'm sure you'll notice quite a lot of "non-war-criminal" authors. Also, by following the links next to them, you may discover that the vast majority of the text is, in fact, sourced by the latter. It does not really matter how much though: if there were a single solitary well-sourced sentence above (instead of several paragraphs), its deletion would have to be undone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You just recognised (again) that your text has issues to be solved. A polemical disputed text with serios issues cannot simply go, certainly not if we already have a mediated section dealing about that precise issue. FkpCascais (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucky I started this thread then, isn't it? We can remove anything sourced with local publications, and keep the well sourced content (for the third time: its not "my text"). Wouldn't it have been terribly convenient for you to just discard all this unpleasant negative information on the Chetniks, eh? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that some of the sources used in the above are in my view utterly unacceptable in this discussion. In some cases, it would be like asking Tito to give his opnion on Mihailovic or vice versa. Can we stick to our reliable and quality sources on this? There is no doubt massacres occurred, and we have good sources for that. I am not keen to see Partisan/Yugoslav post-war Communist sources or Chetnik expatriate sources included here, as they can hardly be considered unbiased or objective. Can we agree to use just the quality sources we have used for major parts of the rest of this article? Ramet, Roberts, Tomasevich and Milazzo (in no particular order), plus any others we can agree on? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The question of sources is always tricky with contentious subjects. See this list for some sources we're used in the discussions about this and the the Mihailović article. Ramet and Hoare are good examples of reliable sources that must be used with care, due to their strong points of view. Tomasevich has been criticized by some editors has having a bias, as has Karchmar and I think also Milazzo, but my impression is that they are good main line sources. I don't recall anyone having any problems with Roberts. Our policy on reliable sources does not exclude sources based on bias, since bias is to be expected, but we do require that sources be balanced. That being said, I agree with your assessment in general about use of sources, and would add that we prefer high quality sources in English, although quality sources in other languages are acceptable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll say again, I DO NOT support using locally published (ex-Yugoslavia) sources at all. I.e. my position is even more rigorous than that of Fkp. Believe me, nobody knows how biased local sources are better than the locals. (Ex-)Yugoslav historiography, virtually for the entire past century, alternates between nationalist and communist propaganda. Its nauseating, I never read it. You can just imagine what rubbish the schools peddle. In Serbia, the Chetniks didn't collaborate except for the Pecanac Chetniks (hence Fkp's initial views on the subject), whereas in Croatia historians are inventing whole fake Croatian countries and diminishing the crimes of the Ustase ("60,000 victims" and so on). The one thing both sides agree on is that the communists were evil incarnate.. the communists however had their field day all the way until 1990, then we have the Bosniaks, etc. etc. And people wonder why Balkans Wiki is such a mess... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been absent for a few months, but have been reading up a bit and hopefully I'm up to date on the situation. I note that Nuujinn's version has excluded the entirety of text attributed to Hoare. Is this the type of "care" that we are expected to use?

I went ahead and revised the above text. I removed local authors, properly referenced the text, and added a few sentences of new text. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a POV mess, since it doesn't place any of these events in context by generally ignoring massacres committed by others against the Serbs. Atrocities during this period, indeed, during the entirety of the 20th century and before were commonplace and extensive, and we do our readers an injustice if we do not place such events in context. I have long proposed a separate article on ethnic cleansing/massacres in the balkans, since I believe that is the only way to present such events properly. Also, we have established that some reliable sources consider the instructions from Mihailovic a forgery. These issues were discussed at length during the mediation, and I'm sorry that you and DIREKTOR declined to participate or agreed with the results, but trying to force this back into the article in this manner is not an appropriate course of action. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why nobody is suggesting we remove your text which provides the context. We will simply restore the text that elaborates more on the Chetniks, who are after all - the subject of this article. However, context notwithstanding, the sources are clear that the massacres and "cleansing campaigns" were, in large part, a reflection of policy based on pre-war Greater Serbian ideology. Note: the massacres were by and large not committed against the (armed) Croat populations, though there was that too, but against the virtually defenseless Muslims - who committed no atrocities against Serbs.

It will be good if in future you ceased calling upon the mediation, which brought forth no "results" and solved no issues. Your purpose seems to be to deliberately create a false impression to the contrary, i.e. you are eager to create the impression it is somehow "against policy" to undo your removal of massive amounts of data in favour of text you wrote yourself alone. Next you will be telling us your section is alone immutable on this entire project :).

Furthermore, even if there was some "result" you could point to (and there is none), there is no policy or obligation that forces anyone to follow any decisions of an RfM. This has been pointed out to you before.

Nuujinn, you seem to view the Wikipedia mediation process as a tool to facilitate optimal article expansion, or a mechanism that enforces the preservation of your text against opposition. A mediation cannot help you there, quite the contrary: the sole purpose of an RfM is to help achieve user agreement. That has not been achieved, and the dispute continues. The mediation, as defined by Wikipedia policy, became quite useless the second it became unable to facilitate an agreement between the disputing parties. I told you well before it was closed in failure, that the mediation has become an utterly pointless affair, and that (perhaps thanks to Sunray's management) you fundamentally misunderstand what it actually is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, was my impression that you complained about OR? Check out your first paragraph... more OR than that is impossible. FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a challenge? Perhaps you'd care to give me a run for my money then? :)

If you look closely you'll note that I am referring to the position of the sources, not myself. I am always prepared to back any challenged point. That was just a side-note to my post, though if I must transcribe the sources here I shall enter them into the article as well. I am speaking from memory though, I admit, as I recall Tomasevich devotes entire sections to Greater-Serbianism and the Chetnik philosophy of an ethnically pure Super Serbia.

But I believe we were discussing restoring the deleted information (as refined by PRODUCER) and merging with your text. Do you have any other objections? You do not seem to be responding to posts in their entirety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to list all of the massacres that the chetniks engaged in, we'll pretty much need to list all of the massacres that occurred just prior to and just after WWII in the entire region to avoid undue weight and present the events in context. We do not need a comprehensive list that is exclusively Chetnik crimes, at least not here, and for that reason I object to inclusion of the material as it is presented in PRODUCER's version. My suggestion is that we start an article, say "Ethnic Conflicts in the Balkans" and make a comprehensive list there, in chronological order, of all acts by all parties. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujiin. I disagree with your proposed course of action. This article is about the Chetniks, and massacres committed by them in WW2 are an important part of the full story. The NDH article is where the massacres committed by them should be dealt with etc etc. I understand that you want the issue of Chetnik 'terror' dealt with in context of all of the 'terror' that occurred in Yugoslavia during the war and historically, and that is what I consider we should do, here in the Chetnik article. I don't think that we need a comprehensive list of every act of 'terror' committed by the Chetniks, but an overview in the context of the various factors that underpinned the violence. I believe that it can be done, using quality sources and with NPOV. Tomasevich Vol 1. has a section on 'Chetnik terror' starting on p256. He states that terror was practised by all parties engaged in the war and that it was ubiquitous throughout the country. He talks about a 'traditional inclination' towards the use of terror as a political tool in Yugoslavia, talks about the various grievances, and then splits the 'Chetnik terror' up into three sections, counterterror against Croats, terror against Muslims in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Sandjak, and then against the Partisans and their supporters. Why don't we use this summary as a basis for the discussion and bring in information from other quality sources to strengthen it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the massacres are important, but with respect, one of the problems with the articles in the Balkan space in general is exactly the approach you're advocating--in this article we have only atrocities committed by Chetniks, in the NDH article only atrocities committed by them, and thus each article presents the acts in isolation, and thus we do not get a view of the overall situation in the region. Also, I do not think we really do not need an exhaustive list of all of the atrocities committed, since we're providing an encyclopaedic view. But we may be getting too caught up in questions of approach. IF we can present the massacres and other atrocities in a balanced and nuanced manner, I'm on board with that. But a simple list of "here's the bad things they did" isn't really appropriate, as I think you would agree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, your logic is very flawed. According to you, NPOV means when writing an article about a war faction, and describing atrocities committed by that faction, we would be required to list equal amounts(!) of atrocities committed by various opposing factions. That's just plain ole nonsense, very indicative of pro-Chetnik bias, and is seen absolutely nowhere on Wikipedia. This article is about the Chetniks, and as far the ethnic cleansing is concerned (and we shall call it ethnic cleansing since the sources do), we shall provide a fair amount of context in the form 1) Chetnik Greater-Serbian ideology and 2) the general brutality of the war in Yugoslavia, and then we shall proceed to write a list entitled "Here's the Bad Things They Did".

Incidentally, if Chetnik atrocities were of a retaliatory nature to such a degree that equal amounts of the supposed "incitement" are necessary, I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business). It was the wrong nation, in the wrong place. You see what I am saying? We would have your "full list" listing various Croatian Ustase crimes, above an account of what are primarily Chetnik atrocities against Muslims.

If the Ustase activities were the cause, then perhaps you think the Chetniks were just "striking out in anger" against the first non-Serbs they can get their hands on? Rather like a husband, who got fired at work, coming home and beating his wife? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I really wish that you would stop trying to dictate what we will and will not do, and stop accusing me of pro-chetnik bias. Just stop it.

According to you, NPOV means when writing an article about a war faction, and describing atrocities committed by that faction, we would be required to list equal amounts(!) of atrocities committed by various opposing factions. No, that's not accurate. What I'm saying is that the structure of breaking out a list of atrocities in isolation is not NPOV. Neither is to treat collaboration as it is treated now, where we list the groups with whom collaboration occurred and within each section list just acts of collaboration. That produces a tally sheet, not an encyclopaedic article. And my position as to why massacres took place is irrelevant, as is yours. Our job is to correctly represent all of the reliable sources to produce a balanced article, not to paint the Chetniks any particular color.

But in regard to Incidentally, if Chetnik atrocities were of a retaliatory nature to such a degree that equal amounts of the supposed "incitement" are necessary, I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business), that's a complete straw man, as I said nothing of the sort. These events took place in an historical context, and we need to reflect that. I will point you to Tomosevich, page 256-257:

• Chetnik mass terror was directed primarily against three groups. First, these are the Croats in the areas where Serbs and Croats lived in mixed communities and where the Ustashas were implementing mass terror against the Serbs and the Chetniks against the Croats. Both were drawing on strong religious and national differences, so that terror and counter-terror had their ideological aspects in the thosand-year-old antagonism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The second group, the Moslem population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandjak was one of the primary victims of Chetnik terror. Here, the centuries-old religious and political Christian-Moslem antagonism had been aggravated during the First World War when many Bosnian Moslems joined the Austro-Hungarian Schutz-korps, which engaged in anti-Serb activities, and again after April 1941 when a great many Moslems joined the Ustashas and participated in atrocities against the Serbs. The Moslems were thus a traditional enemy, and it was only after mid-1943, when the potential political value of the Moslem population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak took on importance for the Chetniks, that they suspended their acts of terror against the Moslems. The third group against whom the Chetniks used mass terror was, of course, their principal enemy the Partisans. Against them, whatever their nationality or religion, from the late fall of 1941 the Chetniks used terrorist methods at every opportunity.

I believe this is somewhere close to page 259, but I'm not exactly sure since you provided the quotes and didn't break them down page by page:

• In terms of the number of victims and the cruelty of dispatching them, the Croatian Ustashas were, of course, far more guilty of crimes against humanity than were the Chetniks, though the Chetnik massacres of Moslem people in Sandjak and southeastern Bosnia were in essence of the same kind. It should also be pointed out that the Ustasha atrocities were undertaken first, and that at least to some extent the Chetnik terrorist activities against the Croatian and Moslem populations were in the nature of a reaction.

So we see, as Peacemaker67 has suggested below, that the atrocities perpetrated against Muslim and Croats were to an extent made as acts of retaliation, justified or no, and we need to present the actions of the Chetniks in that context. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New arbitrary section

I would like to suggest a form similar to this for the first para of this section-

Mass terror in many forms was practised by all parties engaged in the war in Yugoslavia, and occurred throughout the country from April 1941 until the end of the war. Long-standing differences and traditional enmities between the Serb, Croats and Muslim populations were soon exacerbated by the initiation of mass terror by the Ustasha regime against Serbs living within the NDH. Large numbers of Muslims joined the Ustashas and also participated in atrocities against the Serb population (Tomasevich, Vol 1. pp.256-257).

I consider it would then be appropriate to start talking about the argument that some of the Chetnik atrocities were at least in part and in some areas a response to the Ustasha terror (something Tomasevich accepts), and then deal with the evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia, along with the questions about the validity of the Mihailovic/Djurisic instructions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of breaking out another section, but I think we're literally on the same page at the moment. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your "pretend discussions", Nuujinn. I don't know whether you're doing this deliberately to annoy me, whether you just don't read other people's posts to the end, or if you're just discussing with your perception of myself rather than in accordance with what I am actually saying. I am NOT suggesting we describe Chetnik atrocities in isolation, I made that clear several times, on the contrary - its you who are suggesting what is obvious over-emphasis on the crimes of other factions.

"..we'll pretty much need to list all of the massacres that occurred just prior to and just after WWII in the entire region to avoid undue weight and present the events in context."
[though I have to say I have no idea what massacres "just prior to WWII" you are referring to.. :)]

Peacemaker's above quote is an excellent example of the sort of context I do whole-heartily support, perhaps even too brief(!), but not entered without Greater-Serbianism (the Chetniks' primary objective according to Tomasevich) elaborated-upon as well and perhaps with a larger emphasis. The sources can provide us with guidance with regard to which motive to emphasize more. There is no question that industrial-scale mass murder of Serbs executed by the Ustase dwarfs any other atrocities - but they are not the subject of this article.

As I said above, you do not read my posts. I have no idea what straw men you are referring to, since I never stated you said anything. I merely pointed out that the massacres were for the most part perpetrated against Muslims, rather than the Croats, and that this would render a text that over-emphasizes Croatian Ustase crimes as the prime motivation an entirely silly composition. What I am saying is that atrocities against Muslims (which are in the majority), contrary to what you say above, could not possibly have been perpetrated as any sort of "retaliation", and no source could conceivably claim that - since the Muslims did not commit any atrocities against Serbs (or almost anyone for that matter). It seems you're finding the various ethnic groups of the Balkans confusing? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I've read every word that you've written here, generally more than once. Thankfully, I can read very quickly. Let's break it down a bit:

• What I am saying is that atrocities against Muslims (which are in the majority), contrary to what you say above. Where did I make any statement about which kind of atrocity was in the majority? That's exactly the kind of tallying I'm opposed to.
• The straw man is pretty clear I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business). You're talking past me, against a statement I did not make, and I don't care against which group the majority of massacres took place, as I'm trying to focus on that the sources say about the Chetniks.
• the Muslims did not commit any atrocities against Serbs (or almost anyone for that matter). Not true, according to Tomosevich, I quote again: Here, the centuries-old religious and political Christian-Moslem antagonism had been aggravated during the First World War when many Bosnian Moslems joined the Austro-Hungarian Schutz-korps, which engaged in anti-Serb activities, and again after April 1941 when a great many Moslems joined the Ustashas and participated in atrocities against the Serbs.
• atrocities against Muslims ... could not possibly have been perpetrated as any sort of "retaliation", and no source could conceivably claim that Tomosevich does claim exactly that they were to an extent: It should also be pointed out that the Ustasha atrocities were undertaken first, and that at least to some extent the Chetnik terrorist activities against the Croatian and Moslem populations were in the nature of a reaction.

These are quotes that you provided.

Now, if you're sick and tired of how I pretend to discuss things, you can either try to change the nature of our interaction, leave off discussion with me, seek guidance of how to deal with me, report me to another noticeboard or follow some other actions suggested by our guidelines and policies concerning dispute resolution. Take your pick. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• "(which are a majority)" is in brackets, Nuujinn. Read the text without them, and then read you statement above ("the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims and Croats were to an extent made as acts of retaliation").
• The straw man is only in your mind. I am not quoting you in any way, nor am I suggesting you made any claim or statement whatsoever. I'm asking you to elaborate your position as to why the massacres took place against the Muslims, with regard to your insistence on over-emphasizing retaliation as a motive.
• Yes, some Muslims joined the Ustase, but the Ustase were an ultranationalist Croatian movement. It seems quite the stretch that Ustase crimes were so blamed on the Muslims of all people, that their civilians bore the brunt of Chetnik ethnic cleansing. It seems, however, that in all fairness you are essentially correct though. If we can agree to base our position on the above quotes, we might actually resolve this issue.

The essential point is that the vast majority of the text, Nuujinn, will have to focus on actual Chetnik atrocities, I hope you've come to terms with that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, this is absurd, you underlined the part attributing an assertion to me that I believe I did not make. The parentheses do not change that. You say I'm asking you to elaborate your position as to why the massacres took place against the Muslims, with regard to your insistence on over-emphasizing retaliation as a motive. I have no position on why the massacres took place against the Muslims--what I have is a source, provided by you, from Tomosevich, which attributes these massacres in part to a desire for retribution. And, honestly, I could not care less what you think is a stretch--that is truly immaterial to these discussions.

That being said, I am glad to see that we can agree finally on what this particular source says about the desire for retribution being a motivation to some extent for the massacres. And I will repeat that I am perfectly fine with treating the atrocities so long as we observe due weight and present them in context. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of content

Peacemaker, you say: "...the evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia." Wow... how you concluded that? FkpCascais (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, why you delete Nuujinn´s "Arbitrary break" and his post? diff FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"WoW"? :) I hate to break it to you but the fact that the Chetniks etnically cleansed parts of Yugoslavia is not only a very well sourced fact - its general knowledge. I have to say, "its more than a bit disappointing 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." (Ramet p.145)

I did not delete any posts, but I did undo the creation of an arbitrary section, since it was placed mid-discussion, separating response from primary post. These things have to be done with some care, not quite so "arbitrarily", as it were. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais I believe Peacemaker67 is referring to the plans that came first out of Ravna Gora's intelligentsia, and from subsequent Chetnik conferences which advocated carving out ethnic ranges and moving populations willingly or not, even to the point of massacres. Definitely sourceable, but we need to take care as the common (US anyway) usage of ethnic cleaning is a synonym of genocide. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am missing some source, I don´t recall any premeditated plans of ethnic cleansing (as the movement intended to be Yugoslav), but the ethnic conflicts came as result of events, as described by Tomasevich in the source you presented a couple of comments above.

Just as note about Bosnian Muslim population and as response to insitance by direktor on this, lets not forget that the Bosnian Muslim SS Handschar units were all but unarmed and quite known for their "archivements". Also, it is interesting to see that Ustase were condemned in a resolution made by Bosnian Muslim elite for making attempts to turn Muslims and Serbs against eachother (Hoare, The history of Bosnia, p. 227). FkpCascais (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing quite a lot of sources, Fkp. But what do you mean by "premediatation"? None of this happened "by accident" or "spur-of-the-moment", these were well planned and executed military operations. But premeditation is hardly the issue here.

And lets get real, the Muslims of Eastern Bosnia were ethnically cleansed for same reasons they were ethnically cleansed in the '90s - they're in what Serbian nationalists perceive as Serbian lands. Its a repeat occurrence, Fkp, just like Croats with the Serbs of the Krajina. Those poor people were repeatedly terrorized in the most horrific way until they finally left - which is the current state of affairs. I think we've all heard of Srebrenica. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, your statement is a bit baffling to say the least. Please consult the former Formation and ideology section. (That is the version that existed before an IP and a banned user went on to butcher the section (and article in general) to the extant where there is no substance to qualify the section to be called "Formation and ideology".) I expect this to be our next section of focus as it too was removed with no consensus. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP and a banned user? Please feel free to restore the section now, Producer. From there we can work towards an agreement, if anyone has any objections at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to making any changes until we sort these issues out on the article's talk page. Please do not start another edit war by acting prematurely. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you seem to be mixing again the events from different time periods.

Producer, I see all kind of texts are possible when one focuses only on one extreme POV. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can see where you are going with mentions of the 90's as parallel to these events, Direktor, I would appreciate it if we could keep this discussion to the sources and events of WW2. @Nuujiin, you are correct about what I was referring to, the various documents produced and allegedly produced by the Chetnik movement regarding Greater Serbia. I consider we should be looking to briefly summarise Moljevic's work, the Djurisic instruction and its alleged forgery, and conclude what the drivers behind the Chetnik terror were, including the documents, the Ustasha terror etc. FkpCascais, I must say your reaction makes me concerned that you are not serious about using reliable sources. Surely you are not seriously suggesting we shouldn't mention the work of the Chetnik intelligentsia and the Djurisic instruction (along with its questionable origins)? I thought that what we are trying to achieve here is a discussion of what might work in terms of a summary of the Chetnik involvement in mass terror. I suggest you read the Tomasevich reference above for starters. But I would have thought the para I've proposed is a balanced and nuanced introduction to the issue as far as the Chetniks are concerned. What about the para I've actually drafted? Frankly, I don't support the recycling of previous sections, and I'm with Nuujiin regarding edit warring. Please bring your sources here and get agreement here before making changes to the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the other point I thought worth making at this point was that despite the fact that there is evidence of the promotion of 'Greater Serbianism' between the wars and the interest of the civilian Chetnik movement in it, it is appropriate in this article to start off this section with mention of the Ustasha terror because it started immediately after the invasion (within 3 weeks of the creation of the NDH), and thus pre-dates the WW2 Chetnik documents (and even Moljevic's work which he completed in June 1941 before joining the Chetnik National Committee) (Tomasevich Vol 1. pp166-169). I acknowledge Tomasevich's view on the primary motivation for 'cleansing actions' by the Chetniks was Greater Serbianism, but consider he should be balanced with Karchmar's reservations about the Djurisic instruction. There still is quite a lot of evidence for the Chetnik program for 'cleansing' and forcible movement of populations (not just Moljevic, but allusions to it by DM in a proclamation, the proposals of the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in late 1941, the manual produced by the Chetnik leadership in autumn 1942 and the various Chetnik conferences at Strmica, Sahovici & Ba). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all points. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, it is you who is having the initiative to make changes and it is you who should bring sources for them... I already asked you at the start of this thread to bring sources for this evidence you mention. Perhaps it would be easier for all of us if you list them here and then we can analise them and we can see what more specifical sources we need. Don´t forget that it is you who wants to make changes, and as far as I am concerned, I beleave the Chetniks and Mihailovic being monarchists is already sourced, just as the fact that they fought in an army named Yugoslav (not Serbian). FkpCascais (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow.. Fkp, are you seriously citing WP:BRD to someone? Do I need to post the dozens upon dozens of edits of yours where you brazenly edit-war to push new, opposed edits into the article, in spite of opposition on the talkpage - every time to present your Chetnik compatriots in as positive a light as conceivably possible. You may talk about my reverts, but those were the removal of new edits of the above sort you are "warning" against.

It is thus very strange and disturbing for me to see you lecture a new user for merely proposing(!) to enter new edits. You have forfeited that prerogative quite thoroughly. And to top it all off - Peacemaker has not said a single word without a direct quote to a source. Bear in mind that Wikipedia does NOT require that we copy down whole chapters and books - or a single word for that matter. Wiki policy is crystal clear: quote a reliable publication, with a page number. That's all. Your own personal requirements, and their reasoning, you can keep to yourself please.

Please do not try to bully people into writing entire books for you here on Wiki for free. You can buy or rent them like everyone else (and read some of them for once). If you find Peacemaker is lying at some point, which seems to be your implication, then please bring it up here at once. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please.

FkpCascais, in regard to the question of a program for a Greater Serbia, Peacemaker67 has done so already, by referencing Tomosevich on pages 166-169. We have 169-170 at Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations. See also Pavlowich, p. 112, Lamp, pp. 208-209, Macdonald, p.140-142, and Lerner, p.105. Now, from my reading of sources, this was to be a thought of by some as a Yugoslavia with the lines redrawn and populations relocated, converted or even wiped out--the proposals vary, as one might expect--and these were the generally the product of ideologue and civilian Chetnik groups formed as central committees and conferences. IIRC the notion precedes the war. But your point regarding Mihailovic's Chetniks as the official Yugoslav army is well taken. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please" what, Nuujinn? FkpCascais, who constantly and repeatedly makes unsourced claims, and who has not quoted virtually a single solitary source in the course of this discussion, is behaving most inappropriately to a new user who takes very good care never to make unsourced claims, and continuously lists supporting sources in accordance with Wiki requirements. He is implying Peacemaker is being dishonest.

The Chetniks were first formed as such and along those lines as described in sources, and then were given the status of Yugoslavia's armed forces. That fact alone does little to describe their plans and dispositions (and indeed, those of the government-in-exile). This was the case for two years, up until late 1943 and early 1944, when (under British and Allied pressure) the Partisans were recognized as the military of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you allow me, I´ll do this in parts: To begin with, I am reading Tomasevic pags. 166-169, and I dare to say Tomasevic makes a bit of his own conclusions in the intro. I mean, Moljevic is proposing "transfers and exchanges of population of Croats from Serbian lands and Serbs from Croatian ones", and says he supports this as way to avoid the extermination of Serbs undertaken by Croats and Muslims (!)... (Even nowadays there is a similar program of exchange between Serbia and Croatia). Also, the territory of the Greater Serbia was suposed to be within Greater Yugoslavia. Don´t forget that similar partition agreements were on table just before the war (Cvetković–Maček Agreement) in which Croatia was conceded more land while the rest of territory (beside Slovenia) were suposed to be left to Serbia. Lets also keep in mind that the copies of Chetnik maps were provided in Belgrade to Tomasevic in a strongly Tito dominated Yugoslavia and we all know the manipulation all sides used there. A copy of a map showing Serbia streaching till Czechoslovakia? Hmmm... seems more like an intentional presentaion of the Chetniks as megalomans, rather than some realistic serios project of the Chetnik movement during WWII... Just as way to see bias in Tomasevic words, we can see the sentence on p.169: Croatia reduced to less then half its territory and population (i.e. in terms of its post-1945 limits as SR Croatia). Now, lets see, he says reduced, in past tense, as if Croatia was tremendosly reduced, victimizing, however, he compares it with post 1945, when Tito gave the almost entire coast to Croatia and enlarged it. See the Chetnik map Croatia and the Croatia that existed when entering into Yugoslavia: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. He enumerates all the territories making it look like Serbs are taking land from others, but lets not forget that much of it was actually part of the "Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" (and we know what the territory of the last two was, see again the Cvetkovic-Macek agreement). I am not providing my opinion on this, just demonstrating that those same lands were suposedly "Serbian" by that time, and with a bit exagerated maps (coincidentally taking a bit of territory of each neighbouring country, just enough to create fear and anymosity of each country towards Chetniks, seems like a Tito plan of missinformation to me, more than real wish of Chetniks to make an enemy in each and every neighbour). And just to provide further misstrust in Tomasevic, on p.169 he claims again Moljevic plan of "envisages large-scale evictions of non-Serb population", perhaps same precipitation as earlier, when all we heard Moljevic saying was "population exchanges of Serbs from Croatia and Croats from Serbia." OK, I´ll read now the rest of the sources...

May I ask what is Pavlowich p.112 suposed to source?

OK, Lamp, pags.208&209, talks about NDH 3 plan for Serbs (convert, deport and kill). What about Chetniks?

MacDonald is brilliant! He says in 2 page something I am trying to explain in 2 years. (Seems he knew direktor and most of the authors of his sources from young age). Also, just as note, I don´t deny any crimes or massacres, but I do want to see an objective treatment of this issues, not a Chetniks-donne massacres list covering one third of the article.

Ough, Lerner p.105 is quite weak. He seems to have read the Instrukcije and he wants to present it as Mihailovic words. He says "A Chetnik military commander...". Well, in a assembly in Trebinje in middle of the harsh 1942 an unknown alleged commander may have said many things... This is nothing concrete neither official. Then he just copies the Instrukcije and attributes them as Mihailovic words...

Wait a sec. Are this the sources for the "evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia"? FkpCascais (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tomasevic p.77 confirms how Chetniks craated units formed by Croats, thus contradicting feelings of extreme hate between them. Seems Chetniks had a clear notion of the differences between civilians and active supporters of Axis among non-Serb nationalities. Again, I beleave that most matters on this are based on the questionable instrukcije, and on how there are describe, perhaps purpously, others as Croats, Muslims, etc. like if they were refering to the entire poplation, when in fact they were refering to the enemy forces (something like Fighting the Italians, Italian forces, not people). FkpCascais (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, FkpCascais, I get that you don't like Tomasevich. But all you provide in criticism of him (and other sources you don't like) is your own POV. Are you seriously suggesting that sometime after the war, the Yugoslav government bothered to falsify unpublished records kept in the Archives in Belgrade just in case they could give them to someone like Tomasevich one day in the hope that he would accept them on face value, refer to them in his book and use them to conclude that there was a Chetnik plan to use 'cleansing actions' to remove non-Serb populations from some parts of Yugoslavia? I've heard some conspiracy theories in my time, but that takes the cake! Also, check your copies of Tomasevich, p77 (in either volume) - they say nothing of the sort you are attributing to him. Also, one problem with your premise is that even if the Instruktion was a forgery and didn't come from DM (and I think that is debatable, given that Karchmar is the one who questioned it, most others just repeat his theory), Djurisic used the Instruktion to support his 'cleansing actions' around Foca and in Sandzak. He was a Chetnik commander, was he not? In fact, he commanded the Chetniks in Montenegro for long periods, so the combination of the fact that he used the Instruktion to support what he then did, then twice reported what he had done up his chain of command is evidence that there was a Chetnik plan to 'cleanse' parts of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

I am sorry, but these sources doen´t provide any major evidence for any exagerated conclusions of "ethnic cleansing"... I see population exchange suggestions and some retaliatory actions, but nothing that could suggest such strong accusations as you want to make. Also, putting a link to Ethnic cleansing at beggining of the section is inapropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm even more sorry FkpCascais. The sources are very clear with regard to the fact that the Chetniks did commit numerous acts of mass ethnic cleansing (Ramet e.g.). The Chetniks themselves referred to them as "cleansing actions" for crying out loud! (Tomasevich p.259) You can bandy words like "major evidence", "inappropriate", or "exagerated conclusions" (with one "g"), but as eloquent as you may be, your words count for very little or nothing. You do not get to decide what constitutes "major" evidence, you do not get to proclaim something as "exagerated", and you certainly are not the one to teach us all about propriety.

Either discredit the source, or accept what it states. There is no third way - however hard you may be working to invent one by expressing your opinions here and misquoting various guidelines. Fkp, you are here to protect the image of your Serbian compatriots. Your ability to do so in spite of sources, without sources, is amazing. The Chetniks are indeed the icons of 20th century Serbian nationalism, but at some point the charade has to come to an end, and the facts represented in accordance with the references. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then it shouldn´t be a problem for you just to tell me here which exact sources (with page number) support that. Note that naming "čišćenje" of anti-state elements and enemies into ethnic cleansing is OR. Name the sources please. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

English, please. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don´t you warry about that. Please, bring sources, as you are making one of the hardest possible accusations into the table without even one direct citation. Don´t forget that for such a hard accusation you need to have some scholar agreement. FkpCascais (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...and further, I will like to see MacDonald (p. 140-142) included in the article. He is a reliable non-local author, and he will balance the article as much of the article is sourced by Croatian historians. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. Calling what the Chetniks did (around Foca and in Sandzak) 'ethnic cleansing' is not OR. Ethnic cleansing is described in this way by the current entry: 'a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas'. The definition from the UN Commission of Experts in a January 1993 report to the Security Council was 'rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area' (quoted by Roger Cohen in 'Crimes of War 2.0'(2007) eds Roy Gutman, David Rieff and Anthony Dworkin, pp.175-177). The term was coined during the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's, so it cannot be expected that Tomasevich would have used that exact term in 1975, however Wikipedia applies it retrospectively to a whole range of events reaching well back prior to WW2, and Tomasevich and others use the term 'cleansing actions' so my view is 'if the ethnic cleansing shoe fits, the Chetniks wear it'. Now, let's look at that shoe...

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition and compare it to the Instruktion and the actions of Lasic's and Djurisic's Chetniks as an example of ethnic cleansing; 'a purposeful policy (this is the Instruktion - which uses the phrases 'ethnically pure', 'cleansing of the state territory of all national minorities' and 'cleansing the Muslim population from Sandjak and the Muslim and Croat populations from B&H' - Tomasevich, Vol 1, p179) designed by one ethnic or religious group (both ethnic AND religious ie with a few minor exceptions, the Chetniks were almost entirely both Serbian AND Orthodox) to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means (such as murder, extrajudicial executions, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas and wanton destruction of property - Cohen quoting the UN Commission of Experts report again, p175) the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group (Muslims or Muslims and Croats/Catholics) from certain geographic areas (the Sandjak and SE B&H respectively). Djurisic's Chetniks murdered or extrajudicially killed about 9,000 old people, women and children in Sandjak and SE B&H in two operations over about a month early Jan- early Feb 1943 (Tomasevich Vol 1 p258) during deliberate military attacks on civilians or civilian areas, after which the commander of these attacks, Djurisic, reported to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command (DM) the outcomes of the two operations. These people were civilians in anyone's language, and they burned down dozens of villages. These could only be described as 'violent and terror-inspiring means'. OR is 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists' (WP:NOR). What are you saying, that Tomasevich is not a reliable source (you can't possibly be arguing he's not published...)? You'll need to come up with a doozy of a list of sources to support a contention that Tomasevich isn't a reliable source. Or are you trying to say that because he doesn't actually use the term 'ethnic cleansing' (and instead uses 'cleansing actions') in his book, it can't be used to describe what occurred? Exactly what bit of Djurisic's Instruktion and his subsequent actions in the area of Foca and Sandjak in Jan-Feb 1943 are you suggesting doesn't match the Wikipedia entry definition of 'ethnic cleansing'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, are you serious with all this? "You would like to see"? :) Unbelievable... - get the source and use him. Do not presume to order people around, and please contain your nationalist outbursts against various authors. You must understand that you are completely incapable of discrediting anyone on the grounds of your own ethnic bias, you are only capable of displaying your beliefs on various nations for all to see.

Furthermore, we shall not be playing your empty word games again, FkpCascais. The sources fully support the term ethnic cleansing, which means "the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity". It is, in fact, "more than a bit disappointing 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" (that's Ramet, of course, as "no.1").

Both the Ustashe and the Chetnik forces committed massacres and atrocities against civilians and had fascist programs of ethnic cleansing. The Chetniks' victims were Croats and Muslims.

— Borneman p.150

Here's the link. This is a general assessment by the author on the Chetnik movement, describing them as having a programme of ethnic cleansing. This should go in the lede.

"From the summer of 1941, the Chetniks increasingly gained control over Serb insurgents and carried out gruesome crimes against Muslims of eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. Massacres of Muslims, usually by cutting the throats of the victims and tossing the bodies into various water-ways, occurred especially in eastern Bosnia, in Foča, Goražde, Čajniče, Rogatica, Višegrad, Vlasenica, Srebrenica, all in the basin of the Drina river, but also in eastern Herzegovina, where individual villages resisted Serb encirclement with ferocious determination until 1942. Chetnik documents - for example the minutes of the Chetnik conference in Javorine, district of Kotor Varoš, in June 1942 - speak of a determination to 'cleanse Bosnia of everything that is not Serb'. It is difficult to estimate the number of Muslim victims of this original ethnic cleansing, but it can be counted in the tens of thousands."

— Pinson p.143

Here's the link. The author (who is incidentally a Harvard professor since Stanford apparently does not meet your standards), here refers specifically to Chetnik "cleansing actions" in eastern Bosnia, unambiguously calling them "the original ethnic cleansing". Which is exactly what they were, incidentally, at least as far as the Balkans are concerned. Indeed, the author lists another incident where the Serbs themselves referred to their actions as "cleansing". As an addendum, we can note that Srebrenica itself had not suffered its first ethnic cleansing in the '90s. This should go in the main body of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, as you very well say, those are "'violent and terror-inspiring means'". But ethnic cleansing, with all what that means and carries, and with the link at top of the section, hmmm.... In my view we are still taking here mostly on Instrukcije and linking their words to some actions that occured. If this was a court, I will still consider all this circunstantial evdence, not direct.

Direktor, thank you for bringing new sources. I will see them. However, please stop your constant ethnic provocations towards me. FkpCascais (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Pinson, it is interesting to see the only review of the book: review. FkpCascais (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. As far as what the term ethnic cleansing 'means and carries', it is the Wikipedia article that is linked, and so of course it is the Wikipedia definition we are using here. That's why I mapped the combination of the Instruktion and Djurisic's actions (both sourced) to the Wikipedia definition. So, in regards to my question re: the definition of ethnic cleansing, are you saying that the Instruktion was not a 'purposeful policy' of a group of Chetniks? Or is it another part of the Wikipedia definition of ethnic cleansing you don't think is met by the combination of the Instruktion and the actions of Djurisic's Chetniks? Please tell me what part. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source. With that in mind, I'll point out for the record that the definition you are using is actually that of the United Nations, and is probably the best one available. In accordance with the definition of the term, we are free to use it for events that fit said definition.

FkpCascais, there is nothing to "see". Chetnik actions in eastern Bosnia were ethnic cleansing, and the Chetniks in general had a program of ethnic cleansing. The issue is closed. Your "review" by the noted scholar Some Random-Guy :) is, I sincerely hope, some sort of a joke? I also very much doubt that is the "only review" this Harvard University publication got (but frankly, I could not care less). Presented with an author that brings forth (what you perceive as) "negative" information on the Chetniks, your standard immediate instinct is to attack the scholar. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor. My point was that FkpCascais and I have been discussing whether linking this section to the article on 'ethnic cleansing' is appropriate. I'm not using it as a source (that really would be a circular argument...). The source is obviously, as you say, the UN. It would seem self-evident to me that for it to be relevant and useful to link this section of this Wikipedia article to the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing, they would have to have something in common, ie ethnic cleansing as defined in the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing (which btw uses the UN definition). In fact, imho, it would be weird if you could link an article that was not relevant. However, if such relevance is not a Wikipedia requirement, I will get back in my box. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was making a preemptive point as a measure against FkpCascais quoting that policy to you as some sort of a "counter-argument". You are absolutely right in adding that wikilink: this is a free encyclopedia and your edit is explicitly supported by sources. The most important thing now is that the issue on the usage of the term ethnic cleansing is herewith closed, at least until negative peer reviews on Ramet, Pinson and/or Borneman are produced (which is highly unlikely), or until counter-sources of comparable quality can be presented explicitly denying the events in question constituted ethnic cleansing (which is even less likely). As a matter of fact, User:FkpCascais has never yet in my memory produced a single reliable source (on the Chetniks). We should now proceed to enter the sourced information from Pinson into the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I beleave it is not up to us to make conclusions or definitions. Crimes occured, it was a nasty war, but I hate to see editors doing their best just to collect most extreme info and trying to list it in the article without context. In my view the most far we can go is that "ethnic cleansing incidents occured" (with specific time/places), but most of the general idea you want to leave as some sort of ethnic cleansign programe is still based in obscure directives, without actual evidence of taking place. Also, we have contradicting info, such as Muslim nobles rejecting NDH plans for turning them against Serbs, and that would hardly happend if they were "ethnically cleansed" as referred... FkpCascais (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For the fifth time: you are not a scholar, and it is a matter of extreme indifference whether you think something is "the most extreme" or not. In a single post you say "I beleave it is not up to us to make conclusions or definitions" and then you go against sources, and make the conclusion that "the most far we can go is that ethnic cleansing incidents occured" (which is not what the sources say). Wow. When are you going to understand that you are not called upon to make assessments of facts and evidence, and that evaluating primary sources (i.e. "the evidence") on your own is against Wikipedia policy as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH?

As for your claim of "contradicting sources", lets analyze that in detail for the purpose of displaying in full light just how utterly flawed that claim is.

@"We have contradicting info, such as Muslim nobles rejecting NDH plans for turning them against Serbs, and that would hardly happend if they were "ethnically cleansed" as referred."

• First of all, that is from Pinson himself from the same page I quoted above. You did not find another source, you just used mine. And - amazingly - you are trying to use the same source as a "counter-source" against itself. I.e. the same source says they were ethnically cleansed just a few lines below! :)
• Second of all, you did not even read the source properly. The Muslim protests against the Ustase occurred before the ethnic cleansing took place. In fact, the author uses them as a lead-in to the ethnic cleansing: "But although the protest resolutions [against the Ustase] condemned 'a handful of so-called Muslims' who participated in the Ustasa repression, they could not placate Serbian royalist Chetniks and their commanders in Bosnia, who were bent on turning recompense for prosecution into an anti-Muslim campaign." The author then goes on with the text in my first Pinson quote above, describing the ethnic cleansing that subsequently occurred.
• Third of all, even if none of the above were true, and there was a Muslim declaration after the Chetnik "cleansing actions", quoted in some other hypothetical source - that would still not be a contradicting piece of information to what Pinson states. The fact that the Muslim elite issued an anti-Ustase declaration does not in any way contradict the fact that the Chetniks engaged in ethnic cleansing against Muslims. Even if it did not precede it (and it did).

So no, we do NOT have contradicting sources, or even "contradicting information". Unless you produce proper sources that really do support your position explicitly and without your "interpretations", further argumentation along these lines is nothing other than textbook WP:DISRUPTION. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor. In that case, I'm keen to see the section renamed. The subject of the section isn't ethnic conflict, although it is (Chetnik) terror tactics. I would also like to see some re-ordering of paragraphs into a chronological order. The brief summary of the history of the use of terror in the Balkans first, then the Ustasha terror, then a description of the three aspects of Chetnik terror, as 1. revenge - a response to the Ustasha terror in respect of the Croats in the NDH (perhaps using a couple of examples of early Ustasha killings); 2. as a policy of ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in the Sandjak, and Croats and Muslims in B&H (with the examples of Sandjak and Foca); and 3. as an ideology-driven strategy against the Partisans (not aware of any specific examples, the references just say it was widespread and no figures are available).

@FkpCascais. In the pages you refer to, MacDonald uses the incredibly vague term 'Croatian historians' (whoever they are) then throws all sorts of accusations at 'them'. He fails to take 'them' to task in any direct way, because all he does is make generalisations about 'them' without addressing which of 'them' says what. Also, about a third of the section that is on the DM quotes page is actually a criticism of Phillip Cohen, although he conflates Cohen into his generalisations about 'them'. MacDonald cannot be talking about Tomasevich. How do I know this? Because Tomasevich does not do any of the things MacDonald suggests his unnamed 'Croatian historians' do. It is hard to suggest that MacDonald is a valid critic of Tomasevich (or anyone else other than Cohen) when he doesn't even name him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The title "Ethnic cleansing" was in the article for literally years and years until it was removed a few weeks ago by Nuujinn, who replaced it with his own euphemistic term "Ethnic conflict" (presumably since the word "conflict" starts with the same letter and is of comparable size to the word "cleansing"). As for "terror tactics", it seems rather redundant since "terror tactics" are the method by which ethnic cleansing is conducted. So the return of the "ancien titre" seems to me the most appropriate course of action. The current paragraphs should be re-organized, as you say, but also integrated with the blanked text below. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I object to completely removing terror aspect of the title as it not redundant and is also described by numerous reliable sources as such [15]. One mustn't forget that the section also discusses actions against Partisans which were done regardless of ethnicity. (Ramet, 146) I, instead, propose we replace the cop-out that is "terror tactics" with "terrorism". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Redzic, Mesic, Tomasevic and Ramet, the anti-Serbian club... FkpCascais (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If some idiotic crap remains on wikipedia for years and years - as unfortunately, it often happens - that does not make it less ridiculous. I support any attempt to correct the repugnant piece of POV-pushing that has been inflicted on wikipedia for far too long. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

JJG, welcome, could you help here, please. Seems that some sort of offensive is going on and I am quite lonely here and limited to free online content. You have brought many valiable sources to these articles. FkpCascais (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed draft section

File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-Serbian Chetniks

I felt it was necessary to point out the difference in standards used in the article regarding the use of sources from ex-Yugoslavia. We have agreed above to weed out any such sources in the Ethnic cleansing and Massacres section, but in the process we have ignored the fact that the "Non-Serbian Chetniks" section is composed primarily of such sources. I propose we remove them and the information referenced to them or if possible replace them with reliable sources. We cannot allow for such differing treatment of sources to exist in the article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have many local authors used as source in all these related articles. I beleave sources non-local authors should be used for sourcing controversial questions, however I don´t object the use of local sources, if reliable, for the non-cotroversial ones. It all depends if the claims are controversial and exceptional, or not. Btw, in the case of the section you want to insert, I didn´t objected only because the authors were local, but because the claims were controversial and were being sourced partially by a former Ustasa officer and a condecorated Partisan which obviously may have a conflict of interesting for sourcing the issues to which they were used to... FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then these related articles that you mention should also be stripped of local sources. You wish to pursue a policy of using local authors only when the claim is not controversial to you. What is "controversial" will vary from person to person so that is an incredibly poor gauge to use. In the previous discussion you explicitly made us aware of the apparent "Croatness" of some of the authors used in the massacres section and dismissed Ana Došen solely on that basis. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that looking for better sources makes sense, but let's leave the material in for the time being as we look. Also, I'd like for us to reach some agreement in the current discussions prior to moving on to other topics. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)