Talk:Chetniks/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bibliography

Hello folks, thanks for responding to my previous inquiry. I'm glad we were able to move forward somewhat, though I don't know if that draft was incorporated into the body of the work. As mentioned previously, I have some background in Balkans history, though I'm not as well-read as others. Since you all had mentioned certain authors which were more well-regarded than others, one thing which might be helpful to the development of this project would be separate bibliography, linked to this talk page. Here you could list all of the known relevant sources, grouped by those accepted as reliable, disputed, and rejected. For rejected and disputed categories, reasons why would also be given. This way, there is a common point of ground for further research. Both those wishing to know more and those wishing to mediate edits to the article will also be aided by such a listing. GrimmC (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede changes

User:Jean-Jacques Georges, I know you don't really want to discuss, but the lede you altered has been agreed-upon by talkpage consensus and is extremely carefully sourced. As I recall this was never completely clear to you, but one does not simply alter sourced text based on personal beliefs (and condescending comments like "oh dear, another biased article"). As I said, every word that you altered is directly sourced. Bring forth sources of your own to challenge the statement of the sources, discuss, and achieve consensus. Unless you prefer a frantic, kamikaze edit war like BoDu, of course. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, I couldn't care less about what Direktor says, especially since I have seen him repeatedly misquoting sources and distorting facts to suit his own personal ideas. I have no time for him and his peculiar brand of WP:OWN, but will gladly discuss with another editor. The introduction is just, at present, pathetic and needs to be rewritten. End of the discussion - with Direktor, that is - as far as I'm concerned. When I have more time, I shall proceed to make other edits, since the article appears to need it. However, I want to make it clear that I have no intention of wasting a single minute of my time talking directly with Direktor. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This lede is exhaustively sourced. If you doubt that Milazzo actually says something, get a copy and read it. I have one, so we can compare notes. In the meantime, please discuss what you believe needs changing here, and, I can't emphasise this enough, bring sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall. But the current lede is ludicrously biased and makes a particularly bad use of selected sources. I am certainly not denying 100% of what is contained in the lede, but it definitely needs to be more balanced. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no intention of spending six months discussing before editing a paragraph. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you and FkpCascais share an affinity for powerful adjectives that you believe should stand against published scholars. I, on the other hand, am inclined to believe one who indiscriminately calls sourced material "ludicrously biased" is, in fact, "ludicrously biased" himself. I also feel indifferent with regard to the amount of time you are prepared to spend here. With the sources you've brought so far, it is entirely possible none of your edits will be agreed-upon for a much longer period that six months.

P.s. Should you continue to converse with me in the third person, your insulting behavior will be brought-up on the relevant noticeboard. If you would like to ignore me, by all means, please do not respond, but rest assured I will not stand for being continuously insulted in such a manner. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the intro doesn't present an accurate image of the Chetniks' composition

The third paragraph does not present an accurate image of the Chetniks composition in World War II, it presents them exclusively as Serb chauvinists with no Muslim or Croat membership, when in fact there were Croat Chetniks and Muslim Chetniks. Undoubtedly many Chetniks were chauvinist Serb nationalists and there were many massacres of Croat and Muslim civilians by the Chetniks, but there needs to be clarification that there were Croat and Muslim Chetniks. Here is what I propose should replace the third paragraph, I could add on more details on the massacres of Croats and Muslims but I'd like to see what others think of this proposed replacement for the third paragraph in the intro:

"The Chetniks in World War II were primarily Serbs and commonly committed violence against Muslims and Croats, however there were small numbers of Croat Chetniks and Muslim Chetniks, 8 percent of Mihailović's forces were estimated to be Muslims. Mihailović sought to obtain support from Muslims and tried to set up Muslim divisions under Muslim Chetnik officer Major Fehim Musakadić and a few other Muslim officers, however Chetnik commanders in western Bosnia declared their intention to cleanse the area of "anti-Serb" Muslims who were associated with the Ustaše, the Partisans, or supporters of Italy that held military control in western Bosnia; this led to massacres of Muslim civilians. Mihailović was either unwilling or unable to stop the massacres."

Please provide constructive comments on how this could be improved.--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gladly, however I am separated from my library at present. I would point out that the current lead is extensively sourced, and you have used only two sources in this draft. The views of key scholars in this area, Tomasevich, Milazzo, Ramet, Roberts, etc on the issueof the composition of the Chetniks also need to be represented alongside Judah and Pavlowitch. I draw your attention to the non-Serb Chetnik para already in the main body of the article for more sourced material on this issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chetniks were an overwhelmingly Serbian movement. There were a number of token Croats and Muslims (notably Dalmatian Croats), attracted to the movement by their loyalty to the King, but that's all: a tiny percentage of token members. It is a mistake imo to over-emphasize them by mentioning them in the lead.

As for the 8% figure, there are a lot of problems with it. The numbers of the Chetnik movement varied significantly through time, as did their composition I imagine. Which period does the figure refer to? Who estimated that? And can we get another source that quotes it? -- Director (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem, because it is well sourced. Velikonja and Judah are more than sufficient to support the inclusion of the 8% figure, which relates to the end of 1943. See the Non-Serbian Chetniks section. However, I agree the non-Serb elements have no place in the lead as they were insignificant. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my concerns, Peacemaker. There's no need for the tone ;) -- Director (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

glad to help... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

1 Collaboration, 2 collaboration, 3 collaboration.... 52 collaboration

The section structure of the article is against WP:NPOV because the main purpose of this section structure is to support one POV by emphasizing Chetniks' collaboration with Axis and giving undue weight to their communication with NDH. All pictures of chetniks from WWII are pictures about their collaboration with Axis and NDH.

There are 52 words about Chetniks' collaboration with only several words about their fight. They probably fought against somebody if they collaborated with other. The section about their collaboration with Axis contains about 20.000 characters, which is one third of the text of the whole article. Together with section about the cleansing actions, it results with half of the article being about their collaboration with Axis and cleansing actions during WWII.

Every military organization has the main purpose to fight against somebody. Collaboration is something that follows the struggle. Emphasizing of the collaboration resulted with misleading text of this article. Uninitiated reader could be mislead that the main activities of Chetniks and their main purpose was to collaborate with Axis and NDH.

Chetniks' collaboration with partisans (which existed especially at the beginning of the war) is not emphasized like other collaborations. Chetniks' struggle against Axis or NDH is also eluded with the existing structure of the article. In the same time their struggle against the partisans and ethnic cleansing is emphasized (ethnic cleansing is 20% of the article). That is also against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

I propose to substantially change the structure of the article. Military actions of Chetniks should be presented in the main body of the article with their collaboration within one section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Any changes to this article need to be discussed here, and I suggest you outline exactly what you are proposing in some detail before embarking on such a restructure. The great majority of the military actions taken by the Chetniks were collaborative (with the Axis) in nature, including their major military actions such as their involvement in Operation Weiss. You are going to need to provide sourced examples of the Chetniks' non-collaborative military action in order to show that it should be given anywhere near the weight that the collaborative action has been given. A few individual Chetnik detachments in Serbia collaborated with (and in some cases went over to) the Partisans over a few short months in 1941, but after the Chetniks attacked the Partisans, this ceased. There were a couple of short periods when the Chetniks engaged in sabotage action against railway lines etc in Serbia, but mostly they fought alongside Axis or NDH troops against the Partisans. That is who they fought against. Theoretically they wanted to fight against the Axis, but only if the Allies landed, which they didn't, and they decided their main enemy was the Partisans, so they fought them. At present, if, as you say, 50% of the article is about the Chetniks collaboration (and fighting against the Partisans which almost always occurred alongside Axis or NDH troops), it is probably about right. How much space do you think this article should give to the Chetniks fighting the Germans (which they basically never really did in any substantive way)? It is not POV to weight the article based on the weight of the actions of the organisation. There are numerous sources to back this up, most of which are extensively cited in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my proposal, and I don't really have much to add to that now. Taking in consideration that the article about Collaborationism mentions collaboration 42 times, while this article mentions collaboration 52 times it is obvious that I don't have to present any sources for my proposal because it is well grounded not only in wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE but also on common sense. Maybe the easiest way to deal with this issue would be to create new article about "Chetniks' collaborations" and remove all collaboration text to that new article, leaving only a section dedicated to different collaborations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article, and changes made by consensus. And you are going to need consensus for the changes you have outlined. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. All major points, including different collaborations of Chetniks would be presented within section about their collaborations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? I am afraid that it will be impossible to gain consensus for my proposal because the normal process of consensus would be circumvented by coordinated actions of one group of editors. Until that problem is resolved this article would remain to be WP:COATRACK article whose real purpose is to promote one biased POV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

look, I resent the implication. I know the sources, and they say the main activity of the Chetniks was collaboration. They wanted to do other things like fight the Axis, but they didn't because the Allies didn't land. That's pretty much it. I am happy to discuss moving the main body of the article into a chronological structure ie five sections 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, but the content that is there already would need to stay (moved into the appropriate sections) because it reflects what the Chetniks actually did. Unless you have sources that show they did some other things. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Chronology is not an issue here. The content of this article is. This article is obviously focused too much to specific examples of Chetniks' collaboration with.... without clearly discussing its abstract general subject. It has resulted in absurd situation that collaboration is almost half of the article with term collaboration mentioned 52 times. It is more than article about collaborationism (42) or article about Quisling regime (9). Don't you agree it is absurd?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A term is used more frequently in a longer article? No way! As Peacemaker said, sources reveal that the bulk of activity was collaborating. The article reflects the sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The frequency of the use of the term is a canard. The impression any reader would get from this article is that the Chetniks failed and were defeated because; a. Their strategies, which included collaboration and accommodation with their supposed enemy while hoping for an Allied landing, were ineffective in achieving their objectives, and b. because they did not have a wide appeal, and made this worse by massacring tens of thousands of Muslims. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. A term can be mentioned a hundred times if its necessary to cover a complex issue. It is precisely because Chetnik collaboration is such a complex and contested subject that in-depth coverage is warranted. In short, the number of times a word is used is completely irrelevant. Counting words, though much easier, is not how one demonstrates bias in an article. -- Director (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote above:" I am afraid that it will be impossible to gain consensus for my proposal because the normal process of consensus would be circumvented by coordinated actions of one group of editors. "--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course. As opposed to the non-coordinated actions of you and User:WhiteWriter? Actually, I think any impartial observer would conclude that you two fit the pattern far more comfortably, while others are simply users who were long-since engaged here and worked on the article extensively.

It is also fascinating to see you define "consensus" by whether or not your own strange claims (based on word-counting :)) are accepted by the community or not :). "What? My demands were not met? Why, Wikipedia must be falling apart!" Frankly, I am not at all impressed by the fact that you knew in advance your baseless objections would be overruled - on any article. I could've told you that myself. Why don't you try your "word-counting approach to neutrality" somewhere else and see how its met. -- Director (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the same grop of editors is long-since engaged in editing article about Ustaše which mentions collaboration 6 times. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a bizarre observation. The NDH was essentially created and protected by the Axis. It wasn't so much a collaborationist regime in an occupied state as it was a satellite of the Axis. Its very existence depended on its relationship with the Italians and Germans. They didn't collaborate with the Germans and Italians, they were on their side, literally and in reality. They might have done things that annoyed both of their benefactors, but they were still firmly on the Axis side and their survival depended on Axis force of arms. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of bizzare, do you belong to the same group of editors who edited Template:Collaboration in Yugoslavia where NDH (which mentions collaboration 7 times) is listed as collaborationist regime? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited it, I don't own it. I don't agree with everyone or everything on there, I just pick my battles. :-) Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• And completely by accident you found yourself in a group of editors who completely accidentally edited all articles about different collaborators? Was it also an accident that half of the Chetniks article describes their WWII collaborations mentioning it 52 times, which is more than all other collaborators together? Or... someone could see this as obvious case of group of editors who coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus and push their POV? What do you think? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the NDH article does not mention collaboration seven times. It would be great if you came here to discuss this stuff with your facts straight. Three of the occurrences of the word are actually refs (two of them are from the title of Tomasevich's book in the notes and refs sections...). One is in the title of Template:Collaboration in Yugoslavia. The remaining three actual mentions in the article all relate to the Chetniks collaborating with the NDH and appear in the NDH#Relations_with_the_Chetniks section. So, there are a few well-sourced mentions of occasions when the Chetniks collaborated with NDH forces (who were on the Axis side, which definitely makes it collaboration), which I'm sure have found their way into the Chetniks article as well, surprisingly enough. After that little effort (3/7) I hesitate to look at the 'mentions' of collaboration in the Chetniks article to see how many there really are. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And as far as coordinated editing is concerned, that is rubbish, and frankly, offensive. I have often found myself on the opposite side of an argument from Director, less often with PRODUCER, but it does happen. I also edit heavily in articles they never touch. I recently "collaborated" with PRODUCER on a couple of articles (and, yes, they were both Chetnik collaborators), but I have also spent a lot of time recently trying to improve the World War II persecution of Serbs and Jasenovac concentration camp articles so that they reflect WP:RS and cover the subject in a credible and NPOV way, and I fail to see how I could realistically be pushing a POV if I am trying to improve the standard of articles about atrocities committed by the Ustaše at the same time as I am creating and improving articles about Chetnik collaborators. And by the way, I use the same books from my library for both... How's that for NPOV?

Don't you think that your activities or disagreements in articles which are not related to collaborationism in Yugoslavia during WWII are irrelvant for this discussion. You never disagreed with DIREKTOR and PRODUCER about giving UNDUE weight to Chetniks' collaboration. On the contrary. You and the group (three members so far) supported position which result is this absurd article with almost half of the text about Chetniks' collaboarations, with term collaboration mentioned 52 times which is more than article about collaborationism (42) or article about Quisling regime (9) or all other collaborationist in former Yugoslavia together.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

this is a complete waste of time. You, like some of your predecessors, refused to say what it was the Chetniks were doing (as well as collaborating), which would justify giving less weight to their collaboration. I will wait with bated breath for you to start adding this 'non-collaboration' material to the article before I re-engage with this issue. If you just start removing properly sourced material, I think you know that your 'evil POV trio' will revert you, and this issue will end up in front of the wider community for their views to be aired. And you still haven't counted the occurrences correctly in this article or the NDH one, not that I think it's really a relevant measure of anything in particular. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The tone of your comments (and not only your) is violation of Wikipedia:Civility.
2. I asked you several questions but you refused to answer. That can be seen as tendentious editing.
3. You continued to insist on sources for "non-collaboration" (!?) although I based my point on the following facts:
   1. almost half of this article is dedicated to Chetnik's collaboration,
   2. Chetniks' collaboration with partisans (which existed especially at the beginning of the war) is not emphasized like other collaborations.
   3. Chetniks' struggle against Axis or NDH is also eluded with the existing structure of the article.
   4. In the same time their struggle against the partisans and ethnic cleansing is emphasized (ethnic cleansing is 20% of the article).
   5. collaboration is mentioned 52 times in this article which is more than the article about Collaborationism itself, and more than all articles about all other Yugoslav collaborators during WWII together
   6. collaboration part contains huge volume of the hand-picked facts which drowned other information, giving a false impression to the reader. FACT PICKING (WP:CHERRY).
   7. Of all pictures of chetniks during WWII your group chose only pictures of chetniks with some of their "collaborators".(again WP:CHERRY)

Conclusion:

1. based on all above mentioned wikipedia policies and common sense it is easy to conclude that this article is absurd WP:COATRACK article whose real purpose is to promote one biased POV which is also violation of NPOV and UNDUE policy.
2. I think that this is not the only article which is subjected to coordinated actions of the same group of editors circumventing the normal process of consensus.
3. I believe it is more important to focus on the cause of the problem rather than the problem itself in this case. Therefore I will:
   1. check the archives of this talkpage and history of the article to see if there are some non-resolved issues connected with this major problem.
   2. check if I am right by following steps of dispute resolution. You are maybe right and I am maybe wrong. Let us check it and proceede depending on the outcome of dispute resolution process.
   3. if dispute resolution process proves my above conclusions then it would be important that the real cause of the problem is resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@I'm sorry, but your conclusion makes no sense, Antidiskriminator. And if that's all you have then I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken on how one demonstrates bias on this project. Specifically some kind of sources are usually necessary. This is probably a waste of time, but here goes:

1. "Almost half the article is dedcate to collaboration activities"? First of all, no it isn't. Second of all, according to sources (quoted in the article), that was a huge part of their activity. And if you think the rest of the article needs expanding, by all means - get to work. We're certainly not going to butcher the article to fit your ideas.
2. "Chetnik collaboration with the Partisans" isn't "collaboration" in the sense of "collaboration with the enemy". Its not collaborationism, and it makes no sense to draw a parallel. Furthermore, active Chetnik collaboration with the Partisans was quite rare. I know of only one notable instance, the first half of teh Uzice uprising. A month's worth.
3. Please feel free to get to work and expand this article's coverage of the Chetniks' marginal anti-Axis activities. We're certainly not going to delete sections of the article because the Chetniks didn't do much resisting and/or you don't want to expand the article's coverage on said subject.
4. According to sources (again listed in the article), the main focus of the Chetniks was the fight against the Partisans. And ethnic cleansing is not "20% of the article", but again, even if it were - make it less of a percentage by expanding other segments, not by proposing deletion of content(!). Or do you expect others to expand the article for you?
5. Why should anyone care how many times a particular word is mentioned in an article? Should we delete whole sections of the article because of that? Or try to find synonyms like "cooperation"? :D I hope this is some kind of a joke.
6. "collaboration part contains huge volume of the hand-picked facts". No it doesn't. Can you present any evidence of cherry-picking other than a vague claim? That isn't how Wikipedia works, you know.
7. There is no "group". If you believe there is, bring it up with the community. But continued personal attacks here will be reported. As for the images, again, feel free to add others. Just don't think you'll be removing any particular files because they show Chetnik collaboration.

Conclusion: and again I'm sorry, but you seem to be the latest in a long line of Serbian users pushing a specific, pro-Chetnik POV on this article. And I mean no offense by that, its just an obvious fact. The article contains large amounts of high-quality text with detailed referencing by reputable sources (of which you have none), which accurately and appropriately cover the very complex issue of Chetnik collaboration. According to sources, the pro-Axis activities of the Serbian Chetnik movement were (quote) "extensive and systematic" and constituted a huge part of their activities, while their anti-Axis resistance was (quote) "marginal". If your agenda is to delete text from this article because you wish to sideline the coverage of Axis collaboration, well, I don't think any amount of WP:WIKILAWYERING and ridiculously misquoted WP pages will help you there.

@Peacemaker, for future reference, you should probably report a long succession of WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS such as the above. There's no reason for one to let himself be treated in such a manner on the project. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. As far as my supposed tendentious editing goes, these are the tendentious and condescending questions you have asked me, all of which I have already answered (my responses are in bold).

1. Don't you agree it is absurd? No, I don't. Obviously.

2. What impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article? That the main activity of the Chetniks was to collaborate with the Axis against the Partisans.

3. Do you belong to the same group of editors who edited Template:Collaboration in Yugoslavia where NDH (which mentions collaboration 7 times) is listed as collaborationist regime? NDH actually mentions 'collaboration' 3 times, but I have edited that template, as have numerous other editors. In no way do I consider those editors (and specifically DIREKTOR, PRODUCER and myself) a group in the sense you imply (working towards a common aim).

4a. And completely by accident you found yourself in a group of editors who completely accidentally edited all articles about different collaborators? We obviously share an interest in collaboration in Yugoslavia in WW2. It is merely a matter of probability that would occur on Wikipedia. I have only been here six months, but the other two have been here longer. Your glib and condescending characterisation is inaccurate.

4b. Was it also an accident that half of the Chetniks article describes their WWII collaborations mentioning it 52 times, which is more than all other collaborators together? It is not an accident. It is based on the sources, who, by the way, are authorities in Yugoslavian WW2 history (such as Roberts, Ramet, Hoare, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch, Milazzo etc. More than half of the Chetniks time between 1941 and 1945 was spent collaborating with the Axis, so it should not be a surprise. BTW, of the 51 uses of the term 'collaboration' and its variations in the Chetniks article, five are section headings repeated in the contents table, four relate to other collaborators such as Nedic and Pecanac, and six are in the refs or the title of Template:Collaboration in Yugoslavia at the bottom. So fifteen are not even related to the Chetniks, and the accurate number is actually 36 occurrences in an article containing well over over 9,000 words. As far as other articles on collaboration are concerned, I have no real interest in the article about the Quisling regime so I have no idea if it is a good article, is comprehensive or anything about it, and drawing comparisons between WP articles in this sense is strange and circular logic.

4c. Or... someone could see this as obvious case of group of editors who coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus and push their POV? What do you think? It is neither obvious nor coordinated nor a group in the sense you imply. All my interactions with DIREKTOR and PRODUCER are on WP and can be examined and diffs produced to support your contention (good luck). I have responded to your unfounded accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:CHERRY and WP:COATRACK in a forthright way, which I have a right to do given it is you who are accusing me of serious breaches of WP policy and guidelines and failing to WP:AGF when we have had almost no interaction on WP thus far. Report it as incivility and see if it flies.

@DIREKTOR. Thanks, and some good additional points in your entry above. I'll take it under advisement at this stage, but you make a good point about reporting it. At this point I'm going to refill my glass, cheers to all... Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Peacemaker67 for your reply. "Report it and see if it flies". I don't intend to report any of your activities until I complete all steps recommended by wikipedia rules because there is a chance that I am wrong. Right now I only expressed my opinion. Everybody is entitled to have an opinion. You are maybe right and I am maybe really wrong. The only way to check if you are right is to share your opinion publicly and confront it with opinion of other (preferably noninvolved) users. Until now none of noninvolved users participated in the discussion. Therefore I will continue to follow wikipedia rules with steps I described above. There is a chance that somewhere in archives exists consensus which supports the POV of your group. Also, there is a chance that dispute resolution process will prove that your group is right. In case I was wrong I will apologize to all members of your group and publicly accept my mistake. Everybody is entitled to be wrong. But if I am right, then I will follow wikipedia rules to resolve this issue.
• Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you like, but rest assured that you'll not succeed in deleting sourced content without sources of your own. That's not how things go. And not only is the text on collaboration extremely well sourced, but its level of representation is also sourced as warranted. Authors specifically state it was widespread and constituted a large portion of their activities, while resistance was "marginal" and occurred during "limited periods of time". But even if it were not (and it is), you're dreaming if you think that's cause for deleting whole chunks of text :) - rather other segments should be expanded in such a (hypothetical) case. My heartfelt advice is to save yourself the song and dance.

And I believe Peacemaker made it clear the bolding was done specifically so you can more easily distinguish his responses. Perhaps you should read the other users' comments more thoroughly before WP:WIKILAWYERING. -- Director (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Other user's comments are actually one of main reasons for my concerns about this article. Many of them stated they have the same concerns as I do. One of them is User:SnowFire who said: there is a strong POV-pushing contingent that wants to emphasize that the Chetniks/royalists were totally Nazi-hugging traitors.

I think that such serious concerns shold not be ignored, but either confirmed and properly addressed, or proven to be wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with the NDH

I have a couple of questions regarding this section.

The main source used for this section is: The Chetniks - by Jozo Tomasevich. I am refering to the current version of the article. The author emphasizes (page 226) that division between Chetnik forces and Partizans at the beggining of 1942 resulted with the following situation: "Chetnik forces in those areas and the population that supported them were caught between Croatian and German forces on the one hand and the Partisans on another". He continues that chetniks' attempts to "arrive at modus vivendi with the Germans" failed and that their "local leaders had to seek a new solution" which was "to reach an agreement - at least temporary and not without reservations - on a great number of other issues: in other words, each had to pay a price for a collaboration" between "the Croatian authorities and many chetnik detachments".

Is there any specific reason why:

1. the article does not mention the population of those areas which was caught between hostile forces
2. the article insists that Chetniks signed agreements with Ustaše although source says that agreements were signed between "the Croatian authorities and many chetnik detachments"
3. the article does not mention that agreements were "temporary and not without reservations"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No. I suggest you boldly edit the section to reflect what the source says, and we will move forward to a new consensus version of that section. I'll have a look after you've had a go. I would point out that the Croatian authorities were the Ustase and that the heading of that section of the Tomosevich chapter in question is 'Collaboration with the Croatian Ustasa State'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In one of your comments you said: "A few individual Chetnik detachments in Serbia collaborated with (and in some cases went over to) the Partisans over a few short months in 1941" but the main source for this article says something different.

1. It says that Chetniks cooperated with Partisans much longer. In some parts till the middle of 1942 (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration By Jozo Tomasevich, page 409: "... eastern Bosnia... the Partisans... were still cooperating with Chetniks up to the middle of 1942").
2. Tomašević also does not support your claim about "a few individual detachments in Serbia". He emphasizes: "Like all later Chetniks outside Serbia, the Serbian nationalist groups in parts of eastern, western and northwestern Bosnia ... cooperated with Partisans ..."

Is there any specific reason for this difference between your claims about the cooperation between partisans and Chetniks and the sources?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention of "The Battle at Lijevce Polje" in Tomašević's work. Has anybody heard anything about this event?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean the battle near the very end of the war, where a rogue Chetnik splinter faction, desperate to escape the Yugoslav army, recklessly attacked NDH tanks and got plastered? I know Ustase sympathizers around here like to proudly point at the one marginally-notable battle where the Ustase actually fought Chetniks, and won to boot..

Re Partisan cooperation with the Chetniks. Could you copy down the whole sentence (ideally the whole paragraph) instead of the few words, and lets move on from there? Generally speaking, the one really notable instance of Chetnik-Partisan cooperation was during the Uzice Uprising. That was before the two factions were at war, and they were negotiating. It ended with a Chetnik attack on the Partisans (the "great instance of Chetnik treachery" of the post-war Yugoslav mythology), as Colonel Mihailovic simultaneously dispatched envoys to the Germans to offer to "place his troops at their disposal for fighting communism". Afterwards they were formally at war, but apparently in some areas avoided following the directives of their leadership for a while. I remember I got the impression it was a rather marginal phenomenon after November 1941, but I don't have the book with me at this time.. -- Director (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich 1975 (not 2001) is the main source I have used when editing this article. It is Volume 1 of two published volumes, and is sub-titled 'The Chetniks'. I mention this as you may be thinking they are the same book. It has an index entry for 'Chetnik-Partisan cooperation', listing pages 135-141, 145, 147-148 & 156-157. I have just quickly re-read them all, and could not find a reference to such cooperation after 1941. I will point out at this stage that this volume is focused on the Chetniks, and as such is a key source on them. However, tomorrow I will check Tomasevich 2001, which is focused on the other warring factions, such as Nedic's regime, the NDH, etc. T's third volume on the Partisans has not been published. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

the background to the Battle at Lijevce Polje is covered in the Pavle Djurisic article, where you will find a well-sourced description of what occurred, pretty much as DIREKTOR has summarised. They tried to get to Slovenia from eastern Bosnia and were double crossed, defeated, captured and killed.Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67 for your reply.

• The quotes I presented prove that Tomašević wrote that both Chetniks from Serbia and outside Serbia cooperated with partisans, not only till the end of 1941 but some of them until middle of 1942. This cooperation is eluded in the article with half of the sentence mentioning early cooperation in Serbia. Is there any specific reason why information about this cooperation is not presented to the readers of this article?
• I see that you knew about The Battle at Lijevce Polje, also mentioned by Tomasevic. Is there any specific reason why this event is not presented in the text of the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please quote the entire paragraph and context.
• Nobody here is answerable to you, Antidiskriminator. The name of the battle in English is "Battle on Lijevče field" (polje = field), and if you want to cover it - go ahead. Though again, please source your info accurately and carefully, and more importantly: the battle was not very significant. And I don't agree it should be over-emphasized. This article is on the Chetniks, whereas battles generally belong in the Yugoslav Front article. Its reasonable to mention Lijevca field in this context, but not by any means extensively.

-- Director (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DIREKTOR for explaining why are you opposed to addition of details about this battle between Chetniks and NDH forces.

• Can you please use the same arguments and clarify the creation of whole separate section completely dedicated to the extensively elaborated collaborationism of Chetniks during the Battle of Neretva?

Please take in consideration that the Battle of Neretva was also part of the Yugoslav Front (but with much smaller number of Chetnik forces involved and their much lower casualties then Battle on Lijevče Field).

You are, of course, free to refuse to answer to my simple clarifying question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. If you want a sensible discussion about issues you have raised, could you please divide your queries into sections with titles that actually reflect what you are asking about? No-one (including me) is going to be able to follow this if you jump from NDH collaboration to Chetnik-Partisan cooperation back to NDH collaboration etc within one talkpage section. Can I also point out that the talk page is not an opportunity for you to revive the Spanish Inquisition? If you are really interested in improving the article and don't have some other agenda such as gathering evidence of WP:TAGTEAM [User:Antidiskriminator/Sandbox&oldid=497435934#Chetniks] and [User_talk:Nuujinn&oldid=497276907#Chetniks], then you might like to start incorporating the material you have suggested should be included. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will start new section on this talkpage with title Chetnik-Partisan cooperation.
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing says: Simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. On what basis are you suggesting that Operation Weiss involved less Chetniks and less casualties than the Battle of Lijevce Field? So far as I can see no source has even been provided for the casualties for the latter battle. I would be very wary of making such grand claims without checking some WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw number of Chetniks casualties in the article about the Battle on Lijevče Field. I supposed that it was properly sourced because I saw that you and DIREKTOR are main contributors to that article also. Was I wrong?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any refs for the Lijevce battle other than the ones in its article. I personally have rm unsourced info and cited sources to improve it, but that is the sum total of my involvement in that article. I have spent more time on the battle as it is covered in the Djurisic article, however I don't know of any reliable casualty figures for the battle, and certainly didn't add them to the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am also most interested in your characterisation of the Chetnik casualties at the Battle of the Neretva (or rather during Operation Weiss) compared to Lijevce Field when no figures are listed in the infobox of the Fourth Enemy Offensive article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That is easy very easy to explain. Jozo Tomasevich says that the total number of chetniks involved in the Battle of Neretva was between 12,000 and 15,000. The article about Battle of Lijevče Field (of which you and DIREKTOR are main contributors) says that 7,000 Chetniks were killed during that battle, and that many captured Chetniks were killed too. Jozo Tomasevich says (page 448) that number of captured Chetniks was about 7,000. It is easy to conclude that number of Chetnik casualties during the Battle of Lijevce Field was not only bigger than number of Chetnik casualties during the Battle of Neretva, but it was probably bigger than the total number of Chetniks involved in the Battle of Neretva.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Chetnik-Partisan cooperation

@Peacemaker67:

• The quotes I presented prove that Tomašević wrote that both Chetniks from Serbia and outside Serbia cooperated with partisans, not only till the end of 1941 but some of them until middle of 1942. This cooperation is eluded in the article with half of the sentence mentioning only early 1941 cooperation only in Serbia. I noticed that you used Tomašević's works while editing this article, including his 2001 work and I am surprised that this information is not presented in this article.
• Therefore I have one simple, clarifying question: Is there any specific reason why information about this Chetnik-Partisan cooperation is not presented to the readers of this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Because we're anti-Serb activists, Antidsikriminator, obviously.

As I said, nobody here is answerable to you for what they didn't do. If you think something should have been added - do it. It is noone's "duty" to add information you think should have been added. Tomasevich's two volumes are HUGE, hundreds upon hundreds of pages-long publications carrying so much data it could literally fit a couple hundred articles. You pick an obscure battle and haughtily "demand" an explanation from people who actually do work here, all the while making an utterly ridiculous implication of bias. Should you continue with this repetitive, insulting, disruptive behavior, it shall certainly be brought-up with the community.

Re your section proposal, I believe it is unnecessary to insert a section for a marginal phenomenon such as Chetnik-Partisan cooperation. I.e. I oppose your proposal, and suggest that you insert information in the existing sections, preferably alongside the Uzice uprising. As always on this article, you can probably expect opposed edits will be reverted. Please discuss here and try to achieve a consensus of some sort. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Tomasevich Vols 1&2 have about 1500 pages of text, the quote you have used from 2001 p. 409 is unindexed re Chetnik-Partisan cooperation (probably because it appears in a section about Population Shifts in a chapter about the Ustase terror) and consists of one or two sentences the subject of which is Chetnik and Partisan terror against Muslims. It specifically mentions eastern Bosnia as being the area where cooperation and combined terror against Muslims occurred, and does not say Chetniks in Serbia or anywhere else other than eastern Bosnia cooperated with the Partisans (or vice versa) in 1942. I'm unsure what page the other material is from. Could you provide the page number, and I would be glad to elucidate. By the way, elude or eluded is not used in the context you are using it, and is potentially confusing for editors. Perhaps you mean 'omitted'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation that Tomasevich Vols 1&2 have about 1500 pages of text. I understand that it is really easy to omit something. (Note: the page 226, which explains that nearly all Chetniks both in Serbia and outside Serbia cooperated with partisans till the end of 1941, is cited 15 times in this article.)
• I already gave the page number with text about Chetnik-Partisan 1942 cooperation in my above comment. Here you are again: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration, page 409. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrongly assumed that you had some other quote you had not provided a page number for. What you doing is equating Serb nationalists outside Bosnia in 1941 with DM's Chetniks, which at that point were exclusively in Serbia to my knowledge. What was happening outside Serbia was that groups of rebels, containing armed men of various political persuasions, including Serbian nationalists and communists, were forming into groups. Much of this activity was aimed at resisting the Ustase and their atrocities against local populations. DM had almost no influence outside Serbia at this time, and most ppl didn't even know he existed. In these groups the nationalists and communists strove to take the lead role, and in some cases the groups were subverted by nationalists and ultimately recognised DM as their leader and became part of the Chetnik movement. Page 161 of T Vol 1 explains the subversion that occurred. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If I don't AGF I could be tempted to see your comment as straw man fallacy. I didn't equate anything. Jozo Tomashevich mentioned Serb nationalists in Bosnia who also cooperated with partisans "like nearly all later Chetniks outside Serbia". Let me remind you that Tomashevich is the main source you and DIREKTOR used in this article. I assume you don't have intention to claim that he is not RS. You cited him almost hundred times (I counted more than 80). That is additional reason why I asked above simple clarifying question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tell you what, chief. I call this tedentious questioning, and I'm happy for you to take it to the wider community for a view. For starters, you clearly don't understand English. Second, Nationalists and Chetniks are not equivalent. I did not cite Tomasevich a hundred times. You are for some reason of uour own ascribing everything in this article as having been edited by me. Your superior, condescending questioning and tone is typical of editors that are happy to find fault with others but refuse to actually do any edits of their own. Pull your head in or start productively editing the article yourself instead of crapping on with all this rot. All you are doing at the moment is asking questions, not editing the article. If you don't like it, edit it. I refuse to engage in this Spanish Inquisition any further. Good day. Peacemaker67 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Good day, sir. -- Director (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Tomasevich didn't write his works only on English: "Kao gotovo svi četnici van Srbije, i srpske nacionalističke grupe u onim dijelovima istočne, centralne i sjeverozapadne Bosne koji su ležali istočno od njemačko-talijanske demarkacione linije surađivale su s partizanima.... sve dok nije došlo do rascjepa između četnika i partizana u Srbiji...".
• The main purpose of my questions was not to edit this article, but to determine if my concerns (and concerns of many other editors) are justified, because instead of dealing with the consequences I think the real problem should be resolved first. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

user is currently blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuHu22 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with Allies

There are many sources in which Chetniks are described as collaborators not only of the Partisan forces during the first year of WWII, but also of the Allies. Those sources contain information that Allies supplied Chetniks who struggled against Axis forces. I.e "in late summer and early autumn of 1943, one of the most aggressive periods of activity on the parts of Chetniks against the Axis forces.... The Chetniks were involved in a half a dozen major attacks on those forces, and each time the enemy death toll was around 200 to 300" describing Chetniks struggle against Axis forces in Prijepolje, Priboj, Mučanj ... and capture of many towns including 1,800 men at Priboj..... "they were instrumental in compelling the surrender of the Italian Venezia Division at Berane [Montenegro], and of substantial Italian units at Kotor and other points." - Shadows on the Mountain: The Allies, the Resistance, and the Rivalries that ... By Marcia Kurapovna (page 100).

Maybe it would be good to create a section about this kind of collaboration?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all that's not an appropriate use of the term "collaboration" in this context. "Collaboration" here refers to Collaborationism. No way can I consent to calling Partisan-Chetnik cooperation "collaboration". Its unnecessary and confusing (though again, I certainly hope that isn't the idea).

Chetniks and Partisans generally cooperated before late 1941, at that point the Chetniks attacked the Partisans (1 November 1941) and they officially became enemies. Apparently cooperation also continued "illegally" in some areas as late as mid-1942. I have no problem with an elaboration on that subject, but I would not create a separate section for it. Its not a widespread phenomenon and, with skill, it can certainly be inserted into the existing sections text. But if you feel more comfortable writing a single body of text, I can help out in integrating it into the existing sections.

Equally the "cooperation" with the Western Allies is not something I would say warrants an entire section. Essentially there's Halyard and the fact that the British supplied the Chetniks for the first couple years. Nothing much of relevance warranting such a detailed treatment that it might require an entire separate section. If you'd like to add something along those lines, again, I'd be happy to help you integrate it into the existing sections. But I am opposed to separate sections mirroring the one on the widespread and highly controversial issue of Axis collaboration, which does require detailed treatment due to its complexity. -- Director (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Chetniks' collaboration with Partisans and Allies deserves more space in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree with that assertion, I just don't think that placing the data into whole new separate sections is the way to go. And I don't agree with calling it "collaboration" (that's just nonsense). I must say, also, that experience leads me to believe that its not very likely you're prepared to do some serious editing here. -- Director (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich confirms that Chetniks "undertook "a series of successful operations" against Axis. "Most important was operation in which Chetniks took Višegrad... in which some British and two American officers from the British mission to Mihailović also participated." Tomasevich is used as a source hundred times in this article, so I guess this information was overlooked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

do you have a proposed edit? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I made proposal in my first comment of this section which is basically to explain collaboration of Chetniks with communists and Allies against Axis within separate section. Until such section is created the most important edit would be tagging this article with appropriate tags which should include NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, create the section yourself. You have access to the source. My view is that your behaviour here is a continuation of the unproductive and disruptive behaviour you have engaged in at Pavle Djurisic, and if you tag the article when you clearly have more than enough time to edit it, then your pattern of disruptive behaviour will be reported at ANI. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. Comments about other editors and fact picking in writing articles is disruptive. Tagging misleading articles that do not meet wikipedia policies is constructive. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My position is clear. That's the end of my involvement in this discussion. If you tag the article without contributing, the community will decide about your behaviour. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I must have said this fifteen times already, Antidiskriminator: if you say "this is missing", and it basically isn't opposed - and then you don't want to add it into the article(!) - you don't get to tag it. "Don't place a tag merely because it's technically permitted. Not every article needs a tag, even if the article could be expanded or improved." Present specific suggestions or proposals - NOT vague "complaints" (most of which do not apply anyway). If you're not here to actually do some work in expanding or improving the article, what are you doing here?

According to you, every new article or stub should be tagged for POV because its missing the vast majority of content. Write the damn stuff. Antidiskriminator, I assure you this has gone on long enough and is now disruption. It is incredibly annoying to have to deal with this sort of nonsense every 4 hours: people are getting annoyed. And then you misquote policy to them.. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I presented specific proposal: to explain collaboration of Chetniks with communists and Allies against Axis within separate section because it "deserves more space in the article". The arguments for my proposal are based on the sources, including some who are most frequently used in this article. Because this view is not presented fairly, proportionately and without bias this article violates WP:NPOV policy.

It is easy to check the archives of this talkpage or some other related talkpages to see that I am not the only editor who is concerned about this problem. Only two involved editors who are major contributors to this article rejected my proposal. Maybe it would be good to see what somebody uninvolved think about this problem? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your "specific proposal" was not a proposed edit, it was a statement implying that "someone" should create such a section. Draft one and put it in. Tagging without even making an effort to even formulate an edit for discussion is another example of your disruptive behaviour. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone who don't AGF in your case could undestand your unjustified accusations as attempt to avoid getting opinion of uninvolved editors about this issue.

My proposal for separate section was rejected. Now the discussion is about checking what uninvolved editors think about this problem.

Would you mind it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. 1) Please stop blatantly misquoting policy in every post. Everyone has indeed assumed good faith - that was months ago. Now its just dealing with continuous never-ending disruption and POV-pushing. 2) Declaring "I want this section to be created" is NOT a specific proposal. Its one of your complaints. 3) Do not create a separate section for "Collaboration with the Allies": the term "collaboration" should not be used in such a misleading context (so as to somehow make "Collaboration with the Axis" less striking) - and the subject can be incorporated into the present section structure.

What you imo should do, since this is a controversial subject, is post the text you want to include here first, so we can discuss and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS. Needless to say you need good sources and no WP:OR, and please try to keep the English in good shape (so it doesn't need to be corrected).
But this is all hypothetical fantasy.. I'm not at all convinced you're about to make any contributions here.

In short, Antidiskriminator, this apparent hobby of yours going around every day posting complaints, and arguing indefinitely for the sake of it, really has to stop. Peacemaker is still rather new, so he's probably willing to play along with this a lot longer than I. No more of this, please. This is now an obvious pattern of disruption and POV-pushing - and it will be reported. Please discontinue this behavior and in future bring up only specific changes (I mean the actual text) supported directly by reliable sources. There are currently probably about two dozen sections over several articles that you've posted for the sake of POV-pushing. Please stop creating new "argument arenas" whenever you get bored. -- Director (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR:How many comments you wrote on this page?

• You two refused my proposal and in the same time requested me to edit this article the way you want it, otherwise you will report me.
• avoided answering to my question when I proposed to get the opinion of someone uninvolved (two times)
• and accused me for POV-pushing, disruption, OR .... (although my concerns are based on the sources extensively used in this article and shared by many other editors whose comments can be seen in the archives of this page)

I will follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and RfC about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You go for it, Chief. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't call me Chief.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, no offence intended. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. There is no "proposal" to to "refuse". There is no proposal to have an RfC about - you didn't write a single word in this article, and probably don't intend to write whole sections, judging from the other half-dozen articles you've posted innumerable "complaints" on. Nobody really knows what you have in mind.

That's it for me, Antidiskriminator. You've been formally warned, now please discontinue the disruptive behavior and discuss in an appropriate manner (as outlined above). -- Director (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

According to RSN discussion Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

according to one editor, (User:Fifelfoo). That is not consensus. RSN states "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". There was no consensus of several editors, and it certainly isn't official policy. Your tagging of this whole article on the basis of Cohen, whose reliability you personally dispute, is just disruptive and blatant POV warring. Continuation of this approach beyond the currently affected article (Djurisic) where you don't have a consensus, will be reported as disruption. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Another RSN about Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War confirmed the first one.

1. Fifelfoo: I would say that it is unreliable
2. Nick-D: I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents..it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead.
3. Churn and change: Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion and invite you to get the mentioned editors to comment on your conclusion here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor number 4 (Sunil of India): A propaganda pamphlet"....The Serbs are portrayed as a people who embraced their conqueror, the German Nazis, as a God-sent ally --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL! A consensus of several RSN editors (like Churn and change, Fifelfoo and Nick-D, Red Pen of Doom etc), not a new WP editor who has virtually only edited Croatian Liberation Movement. Next thing you'll be listing Juraj Budak and yourself here. Give us a break, please. Did you ask the uninvolved editors to check your "conclusion" was correct? No? Yes? Surprise me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This is POV-pushing, badgering, and disruption. Its time for a break. -- Director (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No. This is not POV-pushing, badgering, and disruption. This is proposal to accept the independent input.

When Peacemaker67 tagged one article and wrote this comment they did not mind it being based on the view of only one editor only two hours after this one single comment was left at RSN. Just because Peacemaker67 (mistakenly?) thought it supports their POV. But when RSN comments of several uninvolved editors do not support that POV for more than 20 days Peacemaker67 refuses to accept it. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing says: "If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Like so many other disputes you're perpetuating - this matter is closed. Over. There is a WP:RSN consensus that the source is reliable. Start another thread there if you have new information regarding the source. That's all I can tell you. Further posts here are pointless (just like practically all other "complaint" threads you've posted). -- Director (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that there is "a WP:RSN consensus that the source is reliable". Since we disagree about this I will follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and RfC about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fill your boots. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is blatant abuse of the dispute resolution process. Believe it or not, you're not supposed to post an RfC about every point you "disagree" on. And after a while this nonsensical practice becomes obvious as part of a pattern of disruption. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is there WP:RSN consensus that Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is reliable source

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

---

There were two RSN discussions about Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War.

1. The first RSN discussion involved one editor.
2. The second RSN discussion was participated by four uninvolved editors.

Is there WP:RSN consensus that Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is reliable source? Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is Antidiskriminator continuing his pattern of restarting closed discussions [1]. When two RMs in close succession do not produce the desired results - we apparently need "dispute resolution" and a couple of RfCs.
  Same thing here. An WP:RSN discussion has produced a consensus that the source is reliable. Now we need to go through an RfC because the RSN discussion did not grant the desired result. There's probably something next after the RfC. This is plain abuse of the dispute resolution process. -- Director (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved users

• Hmmm, without taking a position on the issue, let me point out there is a bit of selective quoting on the RSN outcome. The final comments were from User:NickD, and no one objected to them. From the prior discussion and the order of the postings, it is reasonable to say that was a consensus response. Reproducing, in full, with context:

So just so it's clear, if Cohen states something as a fact, we should cite him, if he is interpreting facts or giving his opinion, we should cite and attribute the opinion in-text. Where his opinion and conflicting opinions are presented, if they are too unwieldy we should consider using other mainstream sources? Have I got this right? Do we have a consensus for this view from RSN? .... [unsigned, but I believe that was PeaceMaker7]

I guess so, but it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 4:50 am, 19 September 2012, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)

The editor's dropping of that initial "I guess so" is problematic. A half-hearted consensus but still one. The half-heartedness was from the source, while RS, being weak. Churn and change (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

[Continuing a thread from elsewhere...] Note that the dropping of the "I guess so" does change the meaning. The consensus, if you read the full wording including the part you left out in good faith, would be that for facts, one just "cites" Cohen; for opinion one "attributes" the opinion to him. To cite is to add a footnote and mention as the source (inline citation). To "attribute" is to say something like "Cohen states . . ." That wasn't Nick-D's original opinion, but on that thread, facts came up along the way. The final summary PeaceMaker7 posted was: "cite Cohen for facts; attribute him for opinions". The "I guess so" comment agreed with that. Please note I don't believe the RSN consensus (to which I contributed) was an endorsement; it answered a limited question of whether the work was RS per policy and guideline, not whether the work is the best thing, or even a good thing, you could include as a reference in the article. Churn and change (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• [Copied from elsewhere...] :I have expressed a strong and firm view on the text in question, and adhere to my view. As such I am unfit to judge where consensus lies on this issue as I have already been persuaded. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed a hopelessly garbled quote which is attributed to me. I think I made my view clear in the second of my comments in the RSN thread (which followed a request that I post a 'final' opinion), and this clearly represented a shift from my original post. Combining part of this post with my first post so that it appears to be a single sentence which I never wrote is dishonest and stupid. I'd appreciate an apology. Please do not re-post my views; I made them quite clear in the RSN thread. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for combining parts of two of your posts to present your view. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed all quotes from RfC statement to avoid any possible mistake in interpretation of someones view.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Did you want a completely uninvolved comment? In case you do, I can say categorically that the RSN discussions did not result in any consensus about the book's reliability. And in relation to that reliability, the positive side is that it is from an academic publisher. The negative side is that it had at least one very bad review by an academic. So bad, in fact, that it probably should not be used even with attribution. I hope you get some more uninvolved responses; you may do if you can restrain yourselves from chipping in. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• It seems rather complicated. Like Itsmejudith explained, it is tricky, but since it is an academic publisher I think it can be used in the form "According to (academics name)...". Adrian (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments of involved users

I'm sorry, but Sunil of India is not relevant here (sorry Sunil). Sunil has been on WP since 30 May and has made a total of about 30 edits. The relevant editors are Fifelfoo, Nick-D and Churn and change. If you are unsure about what the RSN editors have consensus about, ask them (as I have already suggested a couple of times). This RfC is pointless unless you are forum-shopping. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have advised all three uninvolved RSN editors of this discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is Antidiskriminator continuing his pattern of restarting closed discussions [2]. When two RMs in close succession do not produce the desired results - we apparently need "dispute resolution" and a couple of RfCs.
  Same thing here. An WP:RSN discussion has produced a consensus that the source is reliable. Now we need to go through an RfC because the RSN discussion did not grant the desired result. There's probably something next after the RfC. This is plain abuse of the dispute resolution process. -- Director (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You proclaimed that the discussion is closed saying: "this matter is closed. Over. There is a WP:RSN consensus that the source is reliable.".
  • I disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with requesting the comment in this case. You are maybe right. Maybe there is indeed "a WP:RSN consensus that the source is reliable". There is no pattern of starting RfC discussions. I think this is second RfC discussion I started in my life, with first one withdrawn after reaching consensus with other editor. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also told you to "Start another thread at WP:RSN if you have new information regarding the source." -- Director (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator: we had consensus on WP:RSN. In order to alter that consensus, you need to go there. Not post the umpteenth unwarranted RfC. If you have new information relevant to the reliability of the source, then start a new RSN thread - I've advised you to do so across three talkpages. If not - accept the consensus and move on. But that's something I've never seen you do. You're repeating the same discussions over and over and over and over... Its disruption.

Also, if you move my post again without permission into some section you create - I shall have to do the same with your posts :). I think we need a "Pointless bickering" subsection where our exchanges can be adequately placed. Perhaps a few others as well? -- Director (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move your post. You moved it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is you moving my post, that is, placing it into a new section you create. -- Director (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not the same thing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is my edit in which I added subtitle above Peacemaker67's comment, which was followed by your comment and mine. All three of us are involved editors.
• This is your edit in which you moved your comment from its original location (after comment of Peacemaker67) and inserted under my RfC statement. If you minded me creating subtitles you should propose its removal, not move your own comment and accuse other users for moving it.
• Then you realized your mistake and copied your comment back to its original location.
• Result: Now there are two same comments of yours. One that you returned to its original location (below comment of Peacemaker67), and another that you moved from its original location below my comment which contains my RfC statement.
• Please remove your comment which you moved from its original location and inserted below my RfC statement. Together with subtitle you added. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretations do not concern me. Under no circumstances will you again make it so my comment appears in another section than it was originally posted in. k? Whatever you may or may not think - you're not allowed to do that if I say "no". Should you do so again it will be immediately brought-up on the appropriate noticeboard. Nothing more to talk about. -- Director (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Will you please be so kind to remove your comment which you moved from its original location and inserted below my RfC statement?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from Churn and change's comments above that my conclusion that there was a consensus at RSN was reasonable. Time to drop the WP:STICK, Antidiskriminator. We've wasted enough time on this, I will only use Cohen in the manner Churn and change has recommended and with the cautionary note regarding alternative sources that Nick-D emphasised. Continuing this RfC is forum-shopping as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Less than four hours after bot assigned RFC ID to my RfC? After one editor wrote his comment? No need to rush with conclusions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that Churn and change has commented that the conclusion I drew from the RSN discussion (that there was consensus) was reasonable (and Churn and change communicated with Nick-D about it), I consider this RfC constitutes bad faith forumshopping. When there was insufficient interest with the first RSN, and Cohen was taken back to RSN by Juraj Budak, you had the opportunity to ask the involved editors to confirm what their positions were (and in fact I suggested it), but instead you tried to use the comments of a new editor (Sunil, who clearly is not a RSN editor whose consensus we are talking about) to support your position regarding lack of consensus, then resorted to creating this RfC in an attempt to circumvent the consensus of RSN. No doubt the usual suspects will jump in on the RfC. Looks like WP:HEAR to me, and therefore WP:RFCC appears to be applicable here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

After this comment of Fifelfoo it is obvious that comment of Churn and change, based on the lack of response, was Argument from silence. There was no consensus that Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I will wait to see if the RSN is formally closed before engaging with this further. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't WhiteWriter commenting? And the other guy? -- Director (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean ZjarriRrethues?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny. It's reliable. It comes from a scholarly press and is used by numerous other reliable sources that cite the book including those by scholars Noel Malcolm (Kosovo: A Short History), Sabrina P. Ramet (Three Yugoslavias), Mitja Velikonja (Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina), and Marko Attila Hoare (Genocide in the Former Yugoslavia Before and After Communism) among others. Furthermore here's what two journals have to say on the matter:

• John Xanthopoulos in "Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History." Library Journal 121.11 (1996): 76 states that it offers "a wealth of new information, this impressive, scholarly book is highly recommended for all history collections."
• Brendan Simms in "Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History." Times Higher Education Supplement 1248 (1996): 25 states that it's "a revisionist work in that it overturns conventional wisdom, but not in the murky or dubious sense connotated by holocaust "revisionism". [...] his central thesis of extensive Serbian collaboration with Nazi Germany is well supported by the evidence." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

and that's on top of the positive review by Prof. Ingrao of Purdue University. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a very different thing to say that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as a 'reliable' source to state that '[i]t's reliable'. It meets WP criteria as it is published by an academic press (Texas A&M University Press), it's been cited by other academic works and it's been positively reviewed in academic journals. Under normal circumstances that would be sufficient. However, it is also quite evidently a pro-Croat text that is intent in using the available evidence to maximise Serbian and minimise Croat culpability for crimes committed during WWII. The intent and effect of the text is propagandistic. As David Bruce MacDonald points out, in an impartial treatment of Serbian and Croat propaganda of self-victimhood, Cohen 'became intimately tied to the HDZ regime and was decorated by Franjo Tudjman'. He also opines that Cohen, along with others, as a result of this association and his efforts to alert 'the West to the great dangers posed by Serbian expansionism' ... '[received] accolades well above [his] abilities as [an] impartial and objective [researcher]' and that for Cohen the need for impartial assessment was 'seemingly dispensed with when [he was] confronted with the TRUTH of Serbian evil.'[3] In fact, all the contributing editors here know, I'm sure, the nature of this text and the kind of historical interpretation it advances. In my opinion and if the quality of the article is held to be of primary importance rather than the measurement of whether a given source meets a bureaucratic parameter for inclusion, its use to support any given point in the main article would need a high level of justification and this justification for inclusion should be agreed beforehand through consensus on the talk page of this article. Although Serbian propagandistic histories are less likely to receive such a level of academic support, at least in the Anglophone scholarly literature, they should be treated in the same way. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The approach that has been taken from the RSN discussions is that there was a weak consensus (led by Churn and change) that Cohen could be used to cite facts, and needed to be attributed in-text for opinion. This was on the basis that where other sources were available, they be used in preference. Frankly, Cohen is not widely used, and where he is, is is not usually for anything exceptional. This is the current community view, and I believe it is a reasonable and balanced one. If we were to take your comment at face value, we would probably exclude every single local historian as well as Cohen. So as well as dubious authors, we would end up excluding people like Baric, Pintar, Lazic and Stojanovic. I don't think that would advance the objectives of WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Cohen is seldom used to begin with and there is no instance in which Cohen's opinion is being cited, only facts that are stated in his book and are backed by primary sources and secondary sources are used. I'm afraid you've formed your opinion largely on the limited selection available on Google books. Another academic journal review states: "Cohen, who is himself Jewish, demonstrates otherwise. His well-written, heavily footnoted narration details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis. [..] much of the evidence presented in this book is already well-known to scholars—which is precisely why this book had to be written. It is because of the "widespread acquiescence of Western intellectuals" (p. xv) that these myths have continued to enjoy currency among politicians, the press, and the general public. The author does a credible job of filling this void. Admittedly there are occasions when he overplays the evidence in driving home his point [..] Nonetheless, this reviewer was impressed by both the book's factual accuracy (including superbly detailed maps) and balanced judgments, if disappointed that it took a physician to fill the void left by the historian's guild." Charles Ingrao (1997): Ethnic cleansing, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 25:4, 753-760 The current consensus is, as Peacemaker stated, that Cohen can be used "to cite facts, and needed to be attributed in-text for opinion". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 - I wouldn't see Cohen as necessarily equivalent to the authors that you cite not least due to relative levels of sophistication in their historical treatment and/or importance in the general historiography of the region. I think Cohen is also distinguished, if hardly unique, by his proximity to a political regime and in his rather extreme willingness to instrumentalise history to advance a political narrative. Also, as his is a revisionist treatment I think it merit a greater degree of scrutiny. Having said, and taking your point that he'd only be used for the citation of facts and that his opinions would need to be attributed if included, I wasn't actually calling for his exclusion but for a justification where he was to be included. Thus, what facts would Cohen be used to support and are there no superior secondary sources that could support those facts?FiachraByrne (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On reflection I've probably over-reacted. However, I'd still like to know what specific points Cohen's text will be used to support. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. There are two pages in Cohen referred to in this article, all for facts, none for Cohen's opinion. p. 40 is cited four times, all of which are corroborated by other sources. p. 57 is cited twice, neither is currently corroborated. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Cohen's work is also used in other related articles like Pavle Đurišić where Cohen's work is used to support exceptional assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was that FiachraByrne was referring to this article. And it is not an exceptional assertion, as I have clearly demonstrated there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is related to two RSNs. Here is your question at first of them: "I ask for a community view on this book as a WP:RS on the subject of 'Yugoslavia in WW2' generally" (diff). It is you who emphasized that Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic is of exceptional nature, more exceptional than Karadjordje's star, because Pavle Djurisic is the only Chetnik commander who received it (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is forum-shopping because you didn't get what you wanted at RSN. I have explained WP:REDFLAG, but you apparently still don't understand it. The claim about the Iron Cross is not exceptional by WP standards. Please drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reply. Assuming that the facts on p.40 of Cohen's text, corroborated by other sources, are not controversial we can set them aside. P.57 of Cohen's text is the sole source for the following paragraph:

In mid-August 1944, Mihailović, Nedić, and Dragomir Jovanović met in the village of Ražani secretly where Nedić agreed to give one hundred million dinars for wages and to request from the Germans arms and ammunition for Mihailović.[79] On September 6, 1944, under the authority of the Germans and formalization by Nedić, Mihailović took command over the entire military force of the Nedić administration, including the Serbian State Guard, Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Serbian Border Guard

Is this account contested? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify some of the above remarks I have only considered the use of Cohen in this article. Do you want me to comment on the use of Cohen in the article on Pavle Đurišić as well? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've looked at the Pavle Đurišić article. I don't think there's any issue with regard to the use of Cohen to support the fact that Đurišić was awarded the Iron Cross. Seven secondary sources, including Cohen, are cited in support of the claim. Moreover, Cohen is used to provide a reference to the primary source material from which the claim is derived. If anyone wanted to seriously dispute the claim they'd just have to check the archive and see whether or not it supports this account. They haven't done so and therefore it looks to be rock solid. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, should 'formalized' be used instead of 'formalization' in the paragraph quoted above? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to have a look. We don't often get real 'uninvolved' editors here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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