Talk:Draža Mihailović/Britannica

Britannica

Bodu, please do not accuse other editors of lying. If you visit the Britannica page on Mihailović [1], and click on the tab at the top of the page marked 'Article History', you will see that it is copied from vojska.net. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On the tab marked "Article History" you can see that person named Kanchan Gupta just added web site vojska.net. The text is not copied. By the way, the text on vojska.net is different compared to the text on Britannica. BoDu (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, it does not matter. The source of the Britannica text is a blog (lOl :), its worthless. There's nothing to talk about at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It does matter that the text on the blog(vojska.net) is different compared to the text on Britannica. It is proof you are lying. BoDu (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The text is based on Vojska.net. So says the guy who wrote it. Is he lying too? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere on Britannica site nor on vojska.net site can be found statement that the text is based on vojska.net. You are lying. BoDu (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Heheh, this is really starting to get interesting. xD) The text is based on Vojska.net. So says the guy who wrote it. You can easily check that by following this link and clicking the tab at the top of the page marked 'Article History'. Again, is the man lying too? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave it BoDu. They have a goal and they will do everything. Just like "Eatern block" did. They use the same methods (manipulation), and they act allways together (see edit history of them all) so all of them really count as one. Neutral opinions are needed, and lets wait for mediation. BTW, Alasdagreen, you could provide the link at least (Churchill), without it, its just "your" words. FkpCascais (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the powers of the world have united against you... either that or you have not a single source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fkp. I'm delighted to provide the link. I'm sure you're not suggesting I just made it up, after all. It's here [2], although I'm sure you could have found it for yourself. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"powers of the world" (hahahha...) you, and "your allies" really consider yourselfs that? Hahahahaha... I´m saying exactly the oposite, (it looks more like a annoying minor terrorist organisation, not even one full vote), you´re manipulating again my words.

About sources, I even accept using "your" sources, quite a favour for you. I even asked you to provide me a list of your "best" sources. I don´t mind playing in your field, you are just so wrong that I can affort it. "power of world" hahahahaha...

How quick are you both responding... It looks like you were expecting me...

Thanx Alasgreen. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW "world superpower", it looks like you dislike mediation, or fear it... what´s the problem? FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I consider myself Emperor Ming. FkpCascais: you have no ear for irony, that's all I'm going to say. :) That and I'm going to report you for the above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It´s up to you, but the mediation request has nothing to do with it. So please be kind and tell BuDu or me what is wrong with the request. You are showing very little (well, to be precise, none) good faith in REALLY Wanting to solve this case. BTW, it is not me who is constantly ironising and trolling on this discussion... P.S.:You are the one constantly insulting me, you are the one blocking all the attempts to get mediation, since you don´t want to sign and you are the one who keeps using this kind of provocative attitude (you just colled me "paranoid" twice in your two last comments) despite I have counted all the words you have directed towards me here, and asked you several times specifically to stop, and to concentrate on the article. I´ll repeat:

About your statemnts to me: (Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.) Well, only in your posts directed to me on this page (from "POV...again" on, without counting the previous discussion) you´ve refered to me as: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time) , without the times you have clearly misslead the mening of my words or when you purposly missinformed other editors about the reasons of my block. So, these are really kind words, and I am being paranoid (you just indirectly called me that too) without any reason, right? Please avoid using all this unpleasent words any more, and please try to find some other ways of expression that don´t include this rude terms, and this constant confrontational attitute. Me, and the "community", will be thankfull. I think you can really feel proud and speak about irony and reporting... FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The silly quotes up there do not refer to you. Nice try, but nobody is likely to fall for out-of-context quotes. Simply listing words in my vocabulary is not very useful.

Hm, my graphics card just started failing for some reason. Probably collapsed under the weight of my lies and deceit. ;) Looks like I'll be too busy to write huge reports. My terrorist college Al might not be that busy, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I supose when you tell me that my opinion is irrelevant and my edits sylly, you are really not talking to me, but with Donald Duck, or perhaps someone else... Again, stop speaking on name of some immaginary "community":"Nobody this or that". Speak for yourself (unless you think that "only you" is not enough), or otherwise, say exactly "who".

Anyway, I don´t understand... Please stop being obstructive and sign (or say the reasons why not) the mediation request. It really looks like you are not wanting it for some reason. Point why. If not, is really bad faith. Lets solve this once for all! FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see what there is to mediate. You have not a single argument. There is no reason whatsoever why the sourced statement that "Draža Mihailović collaborated/was a collaborator" should not be included. Its nonsense. All we have is the typical extremely stubborn opposition that is met when perceived national interests are being "defended" by users. The sources are there, the facts are there, deal with it already. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you affraid of then? All other editors agreed. Who is being "nonsence" now? (I am fed up of your unpolite vocabulary, learn some education, I already told you). The only one having "typical extremely stubborn opposition" is you. And what is with that "deal with it already"? Is that how you usually deal with discussions. This and all the rest of your vocabullary? I will, deal with it, after mediation.

P.S.:"You have not a single argument". Oh, yes? Why is that other editors consider my version more NPOV? And who are you to consider it? The person that speaks bad words and doesn´t respect nobody that desagrees with? Grow up. (Be good will and sign) FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that everyone draw back just a bit and catch their breath? We need to remain civil, however difficult that might be in the heat of debate.

BoDu, in regard to the Britannica article, I'd like to make the following three points:

1. I do not personally think that it is a good source, since it appears to be editable.
2. Leaving aside the issue of whether it is reliable, I do not think it supports your argument. The text reads "He was captured by the Partisans on March 13, 1946, and charged by the Yugoslav government with treason and collaboration with the Germans. Mihailović was sentenced to death and was executed in Belgrade in 1946. Although a U.S. commission of inquiry cleared Mihailović and those under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians." I believe your position is that this suggests that whether he was a collaborator is disputed by historians. I do not read it that way--"Although a U.S. commission of inquiry cleared Mihailović and those under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians" can also be read as "even though the U.S. commission cleared Mihailović, historian dispute his innocence".
3. It is clearly a tertiary source, and does not contain citations of sources for the statements in the article, so it cannot be verified. Given a choice between using secondary sources from historians and a tertiary source that does not contain proper citations, I must go with the former. This is I think the most significant point--there is a lot of historical documentation of this period, we are not wanting for sources, and do not need to rely on a short encyclopedia entry for data.

Finally, I will ask again, does anyone have any verifiable and reliable source that asserts that Mihailović did not collaborate? If the Britannica article is accurate, such must exist, yes? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For the past several weeks, that was the sentence I ended my posts with. Aside from the useless Britannica link, User:FkpCascais and User:BoDu have not brought forth a single solitary source. All I get is their opinions on Draža Mihailović, me, Josip Broz Tito, the weather, etc. Can we see a source that claims Mihailović's forces did not collaborate? User:BoDu is probably about to ask you to "prove there is consensus" as we speak. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, the part of "even though the U.S. commission cleared Mihailović" is less important? Nobody is saying he didn´t collaborate, but "the article need to be tonned up", because Mihailovic Chetniks, as said in the Second source (Cohen): "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht. Why you want to emphisize his collaboration, and ignore his resistance role? (Nuujinn, please read the discussion and the sources, so you can know who claims what, and who insists in what. Also, neither this sources found here are enough for such accusation). And by the way, reading Nuujinn´s point 2, this means that we have to treat him as innocent, saying that some historians dispute it. P.S.:@Direkrot: The only one that mentioned weather is you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC) ATENTION: (since here seems to be some confusion) You can all be sure that I, as a Portuguese/Serb of Jewish origin, wouldn´t surely be defending here a nazy movement or a nazy leader. This is not about deniyal of anything. Right the oposite, this is an attempt to stop an "Nazification" of a resistance leader and its movement. Some editors have an obvious "mission" to do this "historical crime" by editing exclusively this issue regarding this articles. This editor has presented himself as "neutral" and some sort of "experts", but I don´t see any other edits on these articles made by him that not the "nazyfication". In some countries, this is a serious offense and a crime. And by the way, I even had Partisans in my family, and I simpatize generally with Titoism, so I really am not taking sides here, just ending this "nazification" nonsence. Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history. Diretkor even insisted in having a photo of the Chetniks posing with Germans as a Infobox Chetnik photo! How NPOV?! And when confronted with that provocation, he just said that was the best shot! Outragious! His nature makes him become completely unable to be NPOV. This wan´t end good for him, he was already blocked many times for loosing his head here, so please, all other editors involved, be reasonable and try to see this case as objectively as possible. Thanx. FkpCascais (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC) So, we are analising here the most incriminatory sources of his most "collaborative" period, don´t forget that. And USA cleared him of the Tito imposed charges, so who should we beleve, USA corts or Tito (Mihailovic worste enemy)? Some Chetnik detachments did collaborate, Mihailovic sanctioned it (that is why there are the separate Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac, they collaborated). If he did collaborate (sources are contradicting about his personal involvement), it was occasional and oportunistic, this way not giving the right to anybody to start an article with "WWII collaborator" and shadowing his resistance efforts. It is very controversial to go against the USA corts and say that his resistance efforts were less significant that his collaboration. Again, in the lede the collaboration can only be mentioned after his condecorations, and in a realistic way (unclear and polemic). He must definitely be excluded from the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, specially not under "Notable collaborators". The changes I propose are more precise quite different from the current version, wich seems nothing more than intentional nazification. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• FkpCascais, to be clear regarding your bolded "quote" from Cohen above, he does not say "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". He absolutely does not say that. This is nonsense. The passage in question, describing a meeting between Mihailović and the German military command in November 1941, is as follows: "During the meeting, Kogard [assistant to the chief of staff of the German military command] and Mihailovic agreed that their common enemy was the Partisans. Kogard, however, stated that he could not trust the Chetniks because, unlike “Nedic, Ljotic, Pecanac, and many others, who had openly sided with us from the beginning,” Mihailovic’s Chetniks “were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht.” According to Pantic’s eyewitness account, Mihailovic protested that “he had never issued any order to attack the German forces. Just the opposite. All of his orders were directed to avoid that struggle, except when his forces are attacked by the Germans". See [3]. In other words, you are quoting Kogard, not Cohen. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it is not up to us to "believe" anything or anyone. We are writing an encyclopedia article, and our beliefs have nothing to do with this. The Britannica article does not say a U.S court, it says a U.S. commission of inquiry, which is a much different thing. Yes, that fact does need discussion in the article. If you have sources that assert that his collaboration was "occasional and oportunistic" [sic], please cite them. The quotes I provided do not indicate that at all. And I must say, AlasdairGreen27 is correct in his reading of the Cohen work, that too indicates a serious level of collaboration. Now, I certainly do not think that any of the source indicate that Mihailovic was a nazi, and agree that we should take care not to give that impression--it seems from what I've read that the purpose of his collaboration was to reduce civilian deaths (since the Nazi reprisals were exceptionly severe) and because it supported his attempts to overcome Tito. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujin. The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic". Details can be found in the fully sourced "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you still didn't find any sources. What are we discussing here? Please do not further clutter the talkpage with your "thoughts and opinions". Removing sourced information, whether from this article or the template, will be immediately reported. When you do get some sources, we can discuss what they say - not what you say. Find your sources, stop trying to falsify, discredit, and/or misinterpret my sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, stop lying. After clicking the tab at the top of the page marked "Article History", you can see that person named Kanchan Gupta just added link to the web site vojska.net. This person Kanchan Gupta did the same thing what you do when you are placing external links to Wikipedia. --BoDu (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LoL... From this point on, I will not be responding to posts by User:BoDu. Its a waste of type and kilobytes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, yes, you´re right, that is the citation of Kogard, but I disagree about your interpretation. What he says is (simplifiying) that the Germans excluded the option to collaborate with Mihailovic Chetniks because they were fighting them all the way. Kogard was very obvious in saying that Mihailovic Chetniks were fighting the Germans. And AlasdairGreen27, please don´t use personal attacks such as considering an oposing opinion as "nonsense". We all know that we don´t agree, but attacking eachother using that sort of language want help. It can only eventually show the lack of culture of the ones using that expressions.

@Nuujinn, thanx for understanding some reasons behind the discussion. Direktors edits are only one way sided, and they completelly dislocated the article from the NPOV. His inclusion as a "Notable collaborator", for exemple, or the lede "WWII collaborator" is very much similar to "Nazy". Specially if decontextualised as the way it is. Encyclopedic would be to give all information (say who says what) and leave the readers to decide. Not having somebody calling himself "DIREKTOR" starting the article with "Collaborator!!!".

@Nuujinn, and @Direktor in this case, about sources, well, I dont want to bring more and more sources here. It is already hard with the ones we have to analise the subject and ask to someone to offer himself to read them and mediate the case. I will provide some sources if they are clear and simple. But otherwise, I am more in favour to demonstrate that neither the sources presented allow Direktor´s edits. We have this sources (I will ask again to please present all sources), becouse by what I see, the 4 sources presented as sources for "WWII collaborator" are just not enough. Tomasevic, the author of the 1 and 4 can´t be considered neutral because he is an ethnic Croat and wrote it in the 1950s in Tito Yugoslavia, period in that country clearly well known for the lack of freedom of speach regarding political enemies such were the Chetniks and Mihailovic. And Cohen and Ramet, having in mind that these are the most incriminatory parts of their published work on the subject, clearly demonstrate the complexity of the situation, and doesn´t allow such a simplicist conclusion.

@BoDu, please be kind with direktor. He seems to have not too many kilobites to spend. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@direktor:We are discussing your sources, so don´t unilateraly make conclusions. You are a simple editor, and if you really think that there is nothing to be discussed about the interpretation of the sources and the edits, why don´t you accept mediation, and quietly wait and don´t waiste your kilobites (this is not personal attack, this is what you just said. An insult is to call a discussion with someone that disagrees with you a "waiste of type and kilobites". If you don´t want to discuss, that is your option, but respect other editors and don´t insult nobody). FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another HUGE WP:TLDR post. *Sigh*... still no sources, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it would help if we could all keep the exchanges short. Perhaps we can break this discussion up into smaller topics?

Your assertion that regarding a point I made is "we have to treat him as innocent, saying that some historians dispute it" is simply not accurate. I've yet seen no evidence that any historian disputes Mihailovic's collaboration.

In regard to your statement "Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history", that's pretty extreme, and I think it is not good practice to characterize editors based on ethnic or political backgrounds. Clearly this has been a heated discussion, and many of us need to take extreme care to maintain civility and to assume good faith. A number of participants have overstepped these boundaries (and if I have, please accept my apologies) at times, so it's not just you, but that statement stands out a bit more to me than the generally snarkiness pervading this discussion. Everyone needs to keep their cool.

As for "who should we beleve, USA corts or Tito (Mihailovic worste enemy) I think the answer is neither, although both views are important. Again, according the Britannica, it was not a U.S court, but rather a commission, and there is a significant difference. Both are arguably biased--the U.S government was not very fond of communism at the time, and (speaking as a U.S. citizen), my government has a long history of supporting nationalists who are in conflict with communists. But even that is irrelevent, I think, since our focus by mandate is to focus on reliable and verifiable secondary sources.

In regard to "Kogard was very obvious in saying that Mihailovic Chetniks were fighting the Germans," that might have relevance in the article on the chetniks, but not here--we're not talking about chetniks in general, but rather Mihailovic in particular.

FWIW, I do agree that we need to be careful in characterizing the nature of Mihailovic's collaboration--he was clearly not a nazi in any sense, but at this point, I think all of the sources indicated significant and real collaboration.

But most imporantly I really think the fundamental issue we are circling around is that of sources. I cannot find any secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not collaborate, and the Britannica article is pretty slender evidence (if for no other reason than it cites no sources). Am I correct in assuming that you haven't found any secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not collaborate? ----Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais is again crossing the line, his ethnic hatred and prejudice have already manifested in his demand that all non-Serbian authors from the Balkans be disregarded, and he has already made it clear he has a problem with those same ethnic groups which suffered persecution by nationalist Serbs in the '90s. Cascais, you are pushing me with your constant disgusting insults, you have already been blocked for such behavior. If this sort of primitive backwater nonsense accumulates I will be sure to write a report and mention your previous incivility. Take this as the absolute final warning. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, with all due respect, phrases such as "primitive backwater nonsense" and "absolute final warning" aren't very civil and do not help us reach consensus. Let us all please focus on the task at hand and let personal conflict and past issues behind us. Myself, I intend to have a glass of white wine as I persue AFD, and I wish a good evening/morning to all of you. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, please, understand something: I don´t want to search for sources saying that Mihailovic didn´t collaborated because I am not defending that. I really don´t know if he collaborated or not, so I am not going to defend that POV. I am not his, neither Chetnik enthusiast! I am just saying that the meaning of the sources has been exagerated by direktor, and defend that the article needs to be "tonned up", following other previous demand made by another user. Since many things has been edited by direktor regarding collaboration, I am questioning some exagerated and non-encyclopedic parts. I would be perhaps more interested in finding sources that tell us about the outcome of the USA commision of inquiry, so that part want be missing in the article. Also, the article needs much work, but it was maynly direktors blocking that lead us to this situation. This was why I wanted you to really know who defends what. Btw, I reported direktor. It is enough of this constant provocation and this kind of language. It has been a constant from the beginning and it is the worste possible experience you can have here on WP. I don´t mind discussing, I don´t even mind loosing this discussion, but his attitude is completelly different and very unhealthy. I have been WP:AGF with him for 2 months now, getting this kind of attitude constantly. Anyway, lucky you drinking wine (you would like it here in Portugal). I can just tell you "cheers" and thank you for having patiente for dealing with this historical issue. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it is not a personal attack to describe an assertion (which is a very different thing from an opinion) as nonsense. It was your claim that was palpable nonsense. If, albeit inadvertently, I have nonetheless managed to offend your sensitivities I sincerely apologise. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, you don´t have to apologise to me. I just think we are civil enough to discuss without steping on eachother. I can (as I did) analise critically each others arguments without using those kind of uncivil words. Maybe using "nonsence" from time to time isn´t much, but when becomes common in every comment it becomes rude. Sorry, but direktor has been like that since his first comment here. I have only seen worste here when comments are made by vandals. It has nothing to do with you or anybody else but him. I really hope we can discuss this issue in a healthy way, but this discussion has lasted because each one of us has its arguments and its supporters. Even admins called direktors attention to it, as here [4]. So, it is quite immature and wrong to call each others things like "childish" or "nonsence". Any educated person can argue without using those expressions. And from the experience I have, if somebody behaves like that in a discussion, it is usually because it is in a "loosing" side, and needs some backing from the "rude" side. FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for those sources, User:FkpCascais. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor stop being obstructive and read my comments. What sources? Do you even know what are we talking about here? We are analizing "your" sources. It looks like you wanting to escape from further analisis of their real meaning. You would really like me to bring more sources so we could "loose" another month or two discussing them. I already told everybody: I have enough for my claims with the sources already present. Anyway, we are still waiting for your acceptance of the mediation request so we can have a final word about the interpretation of "your" sources so we can go on. From now on, any further ignorance of an already commented issue (like this one about me bringing more sources, as I already lost time explaining about it) will be considered lack of interess and seriousness from your side, so please read carefully the previous posts and don´t make any more deliberate confusion. Please sign the request, so a neutral party can intervene and a conclusion of this is archived. FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I appreciate what you are trying to say. Perhaps your comments on civility might, however, be better directed at BoDu; whose every contribution seems to be a gross abuse of the obligation to be civil, with incorrect accusations of lying. Now, on with the matters in hand. Regarding your comments about Cohen. We can summarise the source as follows. Mihailović or one of his colleagues on the Chetnik side asked to have a meeting with the Germans, where they asked for significant quantities of weaponry. The Germans said "We don't trust you. Your forces attack ours". Mihailović said "I've never ordered them to do that. Quite the opposite. We don't attack you except when we are attacked first". The Germans said "We have evidence to the contrary". Mihailović said "I didn't authorise that. It was my subordinates". The Germans said "You must control your subordinates properly". Obviously I'm paraphrasing for brevity, but that's the essence of the exchange. So what it is you think we should take from this source? What part or parts would you like to highlight here? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, Regarding civility, I do defend equal rights to everyone, of course, but since I am nothing more than just a simple editor with autoreviewer rights, I feel that it would be too pretentious from my side to add opinions on comments of other user that are not directed to me. If you feel that way about some comments that he directed towards you, you can obviously ask him whatever you feel apropriate. Just have in mind that BoDu was polite, and it was an other editor that started provoking him in first place, using highly innacurate and provocative accusations towards him (beginning on April 4th). Unfortunatelly, such behaviour from another editor makes that, in many occasions, the general level of debate falls to low levels, so it is up to us to censore those attitutes, and to not tolarate them.

Regarding your correct summary of the source (P. Cohen), I would like to highlight two important facts:

• 1 - No agreement was reached between them.
• 2 - The reason of that was because the Germans (Kogard) accused Mihailovic Chetninks of attacking them.

This two facts just make impossible for this source to be used in a sense "Mihailovic, WWII collaborator" or any other simplifiying accusational expression in that sense. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely "impossible". Negotiating with the Nazis isn't that important for the collaboration topic. Offering one's services to the Axis occupation has nothing to do with collaboration. Trying to convince the Germans that he's someone they can "rely on" is totally insignificant - we should remove the source immediately! oh lols xP

(For the record, FkpCascais, that's sarcasm above.) Simply extracting sentences you like does not mean we can forget about the whole thing. Or are we pretending that is the only reference to Mihailović in the source? A most fascinating post, that.

I don't quite see the point of this. Lets go crazy for a moment: even if you did somehow manage to discredit this one source, how would you discredit the others? Maybe you'd like to share with us some more of your ethnic prejudice and explain for the third time how Tomasevich must be "lying because he's a Croat"? Discrediting scholars is something you cannot do with your own opinions and feelings, FkpCascais. To put it another way: User:FkpCascais is no match for Tomasevich and Cohen.

I assume User:FkpCascais is about to post his first source of this discussion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be correct to accuse him of trying to reach an agreement with the Germans (and saying about what, fighting the Partisans, not the allies, since we are in 1941). But, that just wouldn´t be enough for using in the lede... in the "collaboration chapter", yes. About the reasons of questioning Tomasevic as source for Mihailovic collaboration, I want be repeting myself. Please go back and read it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, FkpCascais - it would be correct to accuse him of being a collaborator. What is this post about? This is one part of one source, and as far as collaboration is concerned - its absolutely damning. You'd remove all the sources and text on the basis of this? I think you know too that's not an argument. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just explained it already too many times. I doubt that your bolding of the words is going to make me suddently change my mind. We agree that we disagree. If you are so sure about your claims, I see no reasons for you not accepting mediation, other than fear of being wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I'm paralyzed by fear. There's nothing to mediate. The simple fact that you refuse to accept the sources and edit-war to remove them does not create an actual content dispute. Paradoxically, there's really nothing to discuss: you have no sources, and your opinions alone are not going to help you at all no matter how many times you voice them. (Bold+italic is for sentence emphasis, do not get the wrong impression that they represent "shouting".)

The difference between me talking and you talking here is that you should write "I think... this or that" before everything you write, and I should (and often do) write "The sources say... this or that". So when I say something, its not me, its a number of university professors of history with books published on this subject. When you say something - its you. Neither of us are professionals, our opinions are irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Filip, the mediation is already underway. That is why Nuujinn is with us. S/he is our mediator. Now, what can we extract from Cohen? How can we possibly take anything from this source but the fact that Mihailović knowingly and consciously collaborated with the German occupiers as early as the autumn of 1941? He went to the meeting at Divci on 11 November 1941 - which he must have thought was a good idea - willing to "parley" with the occupier, because he wanted to get weaponry, arms, ammunition, however you want to phrase it, from them. He wanted a co-operational, collaborative (in its truest sense) relationship with the occupier. Otherwise, what was he doing there? The Wehrmacht knew their business, and Mihailović knew they knew their business. They would not have considered dealing with any party that was not seriously committed to their side. So Mihailović's intention at the meeting was clearly to demonstrate to the Germans that he was on their side. Otherwise, no guns. When the Germans rebuffed Mihailović's approach to them at that meeting because they felt he was untrustworthy, do you really think it is credible to try to only take from this source that, to quote you from above, "No agreement was reached between them; the reason of that was because the Germans (Kogard) accused Mihailovic Chetninks of attacking them"? It's not credible. Please, let's be serious. The question here is whether Mihailović himself collaborated, proposed collaboration, tried to set up collaboration. That question is not for us to answer: we can only reflect the sources, but I think you already know what they say. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor- I could, and I will, correct the text in order to be in accordance of the exact meaning of the sources. I am really just wanting to reach an agreement with other editors that are being reasonable here. Your continuos incorrect and precipitated conclusions will really only be perjudicial for you. You are isolating yourself and making all attempts to obstruct any serious analisis only because it is your version that is now on the article. I am being quite clear, I am offering myself to reasonably discuss every mather on the issue, but I will not be avaliable no more to cope with bad faith and your ridicolous pretentious behaviour. Please give room for other editors to express themselfs (or accept mediation, so we can finish with this). I still see on your behalve unfounded accusations, precipitated conclusions and an incredible fear of someone neutral making an analisis. I will ignore from now on any of your comments that follow this pattern that you have chousen.

@AlasdairGreen27- I don´t see that in the mediation request. Nuujinn is welcomed in this discussion, but how did you conclude that he was the mediator? Did you privately got that information? If so, why didn´t were we informed in time?

Rearding your comments, an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration. And since it wasn´t accepted, there are even less reasons to be considered collaboration. From all I know, they fighted eachother (as refered), an meating occured (fact), no collaboration was archived (fact), fighting, at least anymosity, continued... Far from, "Mihailovic and Germans collaborated, Mihailovic, a WWII collaborator...". FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27- About your statement in your last comment "Please, let's be serious.", I have been very serious, haven´t you been? FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not your mediator, I'm just guy trying to help out.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifiying that Nuujinn. See the kind of lies and manipulation I am facing here? After this last comment of AlasdairGreen27, it has been clear to me that no real interess in discussion exists on behalve of these two users. I am not here to be insulted and abused. Would you be able to further help me discussing here Nuujinn? FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All this lies, manipulation, personal attacks and bad behaviour just indicate how insecure they are regarding their own position, and they just don´t want to acknolledge that they are wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in regard to my role, I see no lies, only a simple misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, AlasdairGreen27 affirmation in his post, citing: "Filip, the mediation is already underway. That is why Nuujinn is with us. S/he is our mediator." is a lie. And a bad intentioned one. I can clearly dismiss WP:AGF giving the fact that he is a "senior wikipedian". Giving your last comment, I would advise you to distanciate yourself from such behaviour. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what AlasdairGreen27 said, and it was a simple mistake, and to my thinking an easy one to make since I'm not even sure why I am here. (;

I do not think that dismissing WP:AGF is a good idea, is a substantial part of one of the five pillars. I'm not really interested in characterizing editors. What I am interested in is working on the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Given your relationship with the other editors, and giving the fact that you insist in excusing one of them, quite compromises your alledged neutrality here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to talk about unless FkpCascais can bring something other than his opinions to counter the half a dozen publications in the article. This is all just jabber. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alasdiregren27 just gave me his support. He said:

• "::Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk."

What better support should I ask? He finally understood my points: "an offer to collaboration is not the same as collaboration" and "approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate". Btw, you are still affraid of having someone else like mediation deciding, direktor? Jabber, really? interesting... Don´t you see you are continuously having a monolog? Even AG27 doesn´t know how to defend your highly unprecisse POV no more. I am not going to answer to any of these out of context comments of yours. You could confront me with the many arguments I did, but you just choose not to, and you prefer to stay isolated making your monological statements that only make sense to you. Sign the mediation request if you dare having someone neutral analising your claims. FkpCascais (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope the above is a joke. If not, than not only is this discussion pointless because of your lack of sources, we also have a serious problem with communication due to your lack of English skills.

I'll repeat: I don't see what there is to talk about unless FkpCascais can bring something other than his opinions to counter the half a dozen publications in the article. The issue of collaboration is not an issue at all as things stand now. If FpkCascais is willing to present a suggestion with regard to a more "neutral" wording of the lead, we can try to reach an agreement. But FpkCascais, na vrbi će rodit grožđe as they say, before you remove the sources from the lead in this way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think working on the lead is a good ideam, I'll throw out a suggestion later today, unless someone beats me to it. FkpCascais, I believe DIREKTOR is correct in his assessment that you have misunderstood AlasdairGreen27--in your quote of him, you neglect to include some text, what AlasdairGreen27 said was:

So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration".
The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he
didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk.

I believe he or she is quoting and questioning something you said (and AlasdairGreen27, please correct us if that interpretation is not valid). I'm assuming that english isn't your first language and that this is a simple misunderstanding. But you also said:

You are contradicting yourself. Given your relationship with the other editors, and giving
the fact that you insist in excusing one of them, quite compromises your alledged neutrality here.

Could you elaborate on this? I am not aware of any contradiction, nor have I any idea what you mean by "my relationship with the other editors". --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the Serbo-Croatian part above, "na vrbi će rodit grožđe" means something like "hell will freeze over" but in a much less aggressive way, lit. "the willow tree will bear grapes" :P. Its an expression, sounds pretty silly when translated. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nuujinn, the mediation really looks like the only solution to this (it´s enough of this "I didn´t said what I said..."). Please be kind and convince the users that didn´t signed it, to do so. Everything else looks pointless. If you have further interess on the discussion, please read the previous ones as well (archive of this talk page). I have explained in detail too many times all my points, and many other POV´s are found there as well. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, first, I have politely asked you to elaborate upon a statement that you made about me which might be taken as an accusation, please consider this a second request.

Second, regarding mediation, if my understanding of the process is correct, it won't work unless all the parties are willing and interested. Personally, I don't think we are there yet, anyway. There are a few other venues we can explore, and I'll go ahead with those in the mean time.

Please do understand, and I mean this as a general statement not intended to reflect upon any particular editor, from my point of view the best path is to put aside the past, forget personal affronts, assume good faith and move forward in a cooperative manner. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don´t have to explain you anything because I haven´t accused you of anything (the ANI report I made was directed towards AG27, you are just mentioned, neither you are, neither I think you should, be included as "reported", I hope I am not wrong). But I will explain to you anyway beside finding impossible that you don´t understand the contradiction in saying "I'm not really interested in characterizing editors. What I am interested in is working on the article.", while insisting in excusing another editor (two comments on that issue), or continuing to discuss issues that are not the content of the article. About "your relationship with other editors", I am meaning previous conversations that you had with direktor and AG27 regarding this issue without being donne on this discussion page (nothing illegal). So, resumingly, you really don´t have to consider yourself accused of anything, and I have allways been polite with you.

Regarding mediation, the only user not interested and uncooperative is User:DIREKTOR, so if you find yourself as a NPOV on this issue, it would be normal for you to adress this issue to him. Please don´t bother me on that subject (mediation) anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)