Jump to content

User:Antidiskriminator/Sandbox/Old sandbox/Pavle Đurišić

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary of my A-class review of Pavle Đurišić article

[edit]

I began reviewing of this article based on the Peacemaker67's request at WikiProject Serbia diff and permanent link to the version of the article at the moment of this request. I immediately realized it has a very serious issue with neutrality. Since this topic was never subject of my particular interest, I hoped that this issues would soon be resolved. I was wrong. Not only because resolving of this issues was obstructed by a couple of editors who struggled to present demonized Pavle Đurišić who was as Nazi/Fascist lover and collaborationist as possible, irrational hater of people of Muslim religion, impatient to kill all Muslims and Albanians he can lay his hands on, especially women and children. The whole anti-Axis period (April 1941 - February 1942) including his important role in Uprising of Montenegro was overlooked. His actions against Moslem militia were presented as actions against Muslim civilians and "self-protection" Muslim forces, without any context. His cooperation with Muslims and Albanians was/is completely overlooked. Now, after I researched this subject more and after I learned more about attitude of main contributors of this article, I realize that it was more logical to propose renaming this article to Demonized image of Pavle Đurišić, then to resolve its neutrality issues.

Neutrality issues of the article were consequence of sources, more precisely:

  1. source selection:
    1. The article predominately relies on Western/Yugoslav communist era biography which is more or less biased toward Chetniks.
    2. no Chetniks sources are used in this article, even for the simpliest assertions like family members or songs
    3. usage of controversial Hoare/Judah/Cohen works
    4. cherry picking of sources to give undue weight to Subnor/Heinz/.... biased views without presenting the opposed views
  2. source interpretation - even the most neutral sources can be misinterpreted by cherry picking only details aimed to present somebodies demonized image.

As consequence the text of this article which had GA rating was a massive POV. Many of those POV issues were resolved, after a couple of major contributors of this article prepared a "hot rabbit" to me (not only in this article) for every small improvement of this article I managed to implement. Unfortunately, this has not resulted with NPOV article. The more I researched this topic, the more other POV issues I discovered.

  1. Every bad thing done to Djurisic and his Chetniks is presented as revenge or punishment for bad things they done. Bad things done by them was presented without any context, giving impression about their inherent bad nature.
    1. ........
    2. ............
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  1. Factually incorrect data:
    1. Death place - The article presented Lijevce polje as death place link  Done
    2. Year of birth link Both 1907 and 1909 are presented.  Done
    3. Albania, not Slovenia: Đurišić had wanted to withdraw through Albania to Greece, not to Slovenia, like article explains.  Done
    4. Number of refugees expelled from other parts of Yugoslava is underestimated 5 times: the text of the article mentions only 5,000 refugees out of 25,000 who were from Kosovo and Vojvodina  Done
    5. Date when Đurišić became Chetnik (October instead of December): link  Done
    6. Chetnik movement in Montenegro was under Đurišić's command - link The text of the article does not say that Chetnik movement in Montenegro was under Đurišić's command  Done
  2. Unclear:
    1. Djurisic's year of birth is unclear. link Both 1907 and 1909 are presented.  Not done
    2. What is his death place? - Multiple sources are presented that it is Jasenovac. (link)  Not done
    3. What happened to Djurisic's followers? - No mention that Partisans killed Djurisic's followers. No explanation why. Link to discussion  Done
    4. Why Partisans committed atrocities in Kolasin? - Lack of context of Partisan's atrocities in Kolasin, described only in the half of the sentence. Link to discussion.  Done
    5. What was the reason for grievances of Montenegrins against Italian forces? - No appropriate explanation of major grievances of Montenegrins against Italians.Link to discussion.  Done
    6. Memorial controversy: In May 2002, plans were prepared for a "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" memorial complex to be located near Berane. There are two three sentences which explain why this memorial should not be constructed. Those two references are referenced with website sources. Still, there is no explanation why this memorial should be constructed.  Not done
    7. Djurisic's allegiance to communists: Were Đurišić and his forces subordinated to the communists during the Uprising?  Not done
    8. Timeline of Uprising in Montenegro and Italian occupation is wrong - The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about uprising and Italian occupation.Link to discussion.  Done
    9. No mention that Muslim and Albanian forces helped Italian forces to execute hundreds of Montenegrins and to intern 10,000—20,000 - Instead to present this information which is very important for the context of the events, the article justified actions of irregulars' with their memory on 1912-13 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire (almost thirty years before this events). (Link to discussion  Done
    10. Unclear political aims of Nationalist Committee of Montenegro - The article does not explain the only political aim of this committee (To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population), which is very important for the context of the events. Link to discussion.  Done
    11. Incorrect chronology of German occupation - The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about German occupation 1943—1944.  Done
    12. three paragraphs in the wrong section - Subsection  Done
    13. Ustaše manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak? - link No explanation why would "Ustaše manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak" made "Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region".  Not done
    14. Why did he wait and why Foča, Pljevlja and Čajniče? - DM allegedly ordered Đurišić in December 1941 to clean "the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina". The article says that in early 1943 Đurišić organized a "cleansing actions" that represented partial achievement by Đurišić of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to clear the Sandžak of Muslims. There are many Muslims living in nearby region around Đurišić headquarter. It is unclear why did he wait for more than a year, and then attacked Muslims not in his nearby region, but in Foča and Čajniče, which are far away.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  1. MOS:LEAD:
    1. Only WWII: Lede speaks only about his life during WWII.  Done
    2. Only 1942-45: When lede speaks only about his life during WWII, it starts with 1942. What about 1941?  Done
  2. Wrong section of the commemoration related text: Text about after WWII commemoration events within WWII aftermath subsection  Done
  3. Template:Infobox military person is not followed  Not done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  1. WP:Reliable source:
    1. Unreliable source from 1912: The opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine published in 1912 and quoted in 1914 were used to support assertions about 1941 events?  Done
    2. Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War: Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War - There was no consensus about the reliability of this work at first RSN discussion. The second RSN discussion resulted without unanimous decision
  2. Wikipedia:Verifiability: Source misinterpretation:
    1. The source used to support date of Djuricic's death is probably misintertpreted link  Done
    2. Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror were overlooked in the source  Done
    3. Serbia, not Belgrade: The source does not say that in November 1943 Djurisic reached Belgrade. It says reached Serbia.  Done
    4. No mention of communists' intention to fight against their class enemies: The full explanation of the distinction between communists and nationalists was overlooked and article only presented information about intention of Chetniks to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region without explanation that Communists wanted to continue with the revolution by turning against their class enemies.  Done
    5. Split development timeline: The split between communists and nationalists appeared during the uprising, but developed only after communist defeat in Battle of Pljevlja in December 1941  Not done
    6. Order of the Star of Karađorđe removed from the article link with false justification.  Done
    7. Say where you read it link The cited source was not actually seen by the authors of this article. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline it was necessary to clarify where was this source actually seen.  Done
    8. Citation overkill Link  Not done
    9. Possible source misinterpretation - The source talks about quisling forces (not Montenegrin Chetniks). This is also possible neutrality issue because text of the article blames Chetniks even when explaining that many of them were murdered together with civilians that accompanied them link .
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  1. Out of scope:
    1. Militant Serbian church: Militant Serbian Church Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral is presented as militant wing of Serbian Orthodox Church. It is implied that it is because it is led by Amfilohije Radovic.  Done
  2. Main aspects missing:
    1. Family details:
      1. Father's name Name of Djurisic's father was Ilija  Done
      2. Father's occupation:Đurišić's father was also a military officer  Not done
      3. Marriage: Djurisic was married. According to some sources his wife's name was Persa.  Not done
      4. Descendants: He also had children and his grandchildren today live in USA.  Not done
    2. Italian reprisals against civilians are not mentioned, although Italians announced to kill 50 civilians for every Itallian officer killed. - link  Not done
    3. Confusion: No context about allied landing and disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces. Also: This archived discussion  Not done
    4. Wounded - link Đurišić was wounded.  Not done
    5. Uprising in Montenegro omitted in the list battles in the infobox link  Done
    6. Command post in Montenegrin National Army was omitted in the infobox - link  Done
    7. Voivode title: No mention of Djurisic's title of voivode.  Done
    8. Order of the Star of Karađorđe - No mention.  Done
    9. No mention that one of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks in Montenegro: link  Done
    10. No mention that one Montenegrin parliamentary political party proposed to build a memorial to Djurisic and other Chetnik officers. Link to discussion.  Done
    11. Capture of Berane: There are claims that Đurišić's forces commanded by him captured Berane from Italians on 17—18 July 1941, during July uprising in Montenegro. Those claims are supported by many different sources, some of them written by historians with PhD in History and specialized in the topic. Berane and Berane II  Not done
    12. Đurišić as one of three "main commanders" of the uprising: No mention.  Done
    13. Song: No mention of very popular Chetnik song dedicated to Djurisic.  Not done
    14. Declaration of Independence of Montenegro: link  Done
    15. Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans: No mention. It is necessary to place the subject in the appropriate context.  Not done
    16. Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro: No mention. It is necessary to place the subject in appropriate context.  Done
    17. Leftist errors (Yugoslavia) - Without presenting this policy pursued by communists in Montenegro, it is not possible to completely understand the reason for split and conflict between Partisans and Chetniks in this region. (link)  Not done
    18. Command post at Montenegrin National Army? Not mentioned in the infobox not done
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  1. Iron Cross controversy: According to some views the information about "Iron Cross" award is forged.  Not done
  2. Cross vs. Star (6:1): The text of the article says that Đurišić received two awards. Karađorđe star and Iron Cross. Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede, two times in the main body of the article, in the caption of an image + collage of two images related to Iron Cross. Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section.  Not done
  3. Militant Serbian Church Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral is presented as militant wing of Serbian Orthodox Church. It is implied that it is because it is led by Amfilohije Radovic.  Done
  4. Certain mentality is attributed to Montenegrin nationalists  Not done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Unstable. The article is not stable. Dozens of major flaws were identified during the review. Numerous content disputes still unresolved.  Not done
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  1. Addition of an useful picture to commemoration section proposed.  Done
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
Issue Explanation Resolved (yes/no)
Lede improvement Lede spoke only about his life during WWII. That did not correspond with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Yes
his father was also military officer who participated in both Balkan wars and in First World War There is an information about military engagement of his uncle, but not that his father was also a military officer No
Lede starts with 1942. What did Đurišić do in 1941? There was no pre-1941 information in the lede Yes
they met their downfall in May 1945 It was unclear what happened to Djurisic's followers Yes
There is a picture which could be beneficial to commemoration section An useful picture was proposed to be added to commemoration section Yes
Missing context of the relation between Djurisic and partisans There is a half of the sentence which mentions some atrocities committed by partisans in Kolasin. Such important information is presented in half of the sentence. Without any context. Yes
Voivode The article did not mention Djurisic's title of voivode Yes
Balkan War (1914) Statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine and quoted in 1914 report of the International Commission were used to support assertions about 1941 events Yes
Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror were overlooked in the source and the text of the article only mentioned 5,000 refugees out of 25,000 who were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Generally, major grievances of Montenegrins against Italians were not properly explained. Yes
When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943? The article presented assertion about Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November. He actually reached Belgrade in November but was captured in Serbia in October. Yes
To Slovenia or to Greece? The article presented wrong information that Đurišić "argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia". In fact Đurišić had wanted to withdraw through Albania to Greece. Yes
Family details The article does not present enough information about Đurišić's family. There are websites with informations about his father, mother, wife, sons, gransons. No
Karađorđe's star The article did not present information that Đurišić was awarded with Karađorđe's star Yes
One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks Information about one of the aims of Case Black being disarming of all Chetniks in Montenegro was overlooked in the source already extensively used in the article. Yes
Commemoration controversy? In May 2002, plans were prepared for a "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" memorial complex to be located near Berane. There are two three sentences which explain why this memorial should not be constructed. Those two references are referenced with website sources. Still, there is no explanation why this memorial should be constructed. No
NOVA's proposal In 2011 one Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) proposed building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. Yes
Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising The full explanation of the distinction between communists and nationalists was overlooked and article only presented information about intention of Chetniks to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region without explanation that Communists wanted to continue with the revolution by turning against their class enemies. This is basically corrected with this diff. Yes
Berane and Berane II There are claims that Đurišić's forces commanded by him captured Berane from Italians on 17—18 July 1941, during July uprising in Montenegro. Those claims are supported by many different sources, some of them written by historians with PhD in History and specialized in the topic. No
July uprising The article did not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising. His involvement is mentioned later, but the information about Đurišić being one of three "main commanders" of the uprising to emerge is overlooked although it is presented in source extensively used in the article. Yes
Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists The existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. The explanations presented in the sources already used in this article are overlooked. Partial
Iron cross controversy There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. No
Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists It is necessary to clarify when the split between Partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Based on the current text of the article readers could be mislead that it happened in August-September 1941 although it happened at the beginning of 1942. No
Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star The text of the article says that Đurišić received two awards. Karađorđe star and Iron Cross. Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede, two times in the main body of the article, in the caption of an image + collage of two images related to Iron Cross. Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. No
Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War There is no consensus about the reliability of this work. No
Song There is a very popular Chetnik song "Đurišiću mlad majore" [Djurisic, young major] written during the war and dedicated to Djurisic. No
Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 1) Declaration of Independence of Montenegro Yes
Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 2) Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans , No
Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, Yes
Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 4) Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces No
First uprising against Italians - then Italian occupation of Montenegro The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about uprising and Italian occupation. Yes
Muslim and Albanian irregulars Does article mention that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" in this action of both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregulars? Not completely. I still believe that this information is very important for the context of activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks. Much more important than justification of irregulars' actions with memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire. Yes
To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population The source emphasize that The Comittee of Nationalists of Montenegro had only one political aim: To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population. That aim is important for the context of the events. Yes
First uprising against Italians - then Italian occupation of Montenegro The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about German occupation 1943—1944. Yes
Text about after WWII commemoration events within WWII aftermath subsection There is a problem with Aftermath section also. It is within WWII main section but contains information about events in 2010. All such events should be moved into Commemoration section. Yes
Removal of Karadjordje's star assertion The article (link) presents claims about two awards Djurisic allegedly received: Cross (infobox, lede, main body of the article, collage of two images and their caption) and Star (infobox). One editor tried to justify much more weight given to Cross than to the Star (which I believe is against WP:NPOV) with exceptional nature of Cross. Instead to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and present exceptional sources for exceptional award when he was asked to, he started to deny that Cross is exceptional and proclaimed Star to be exceptional. Then he removed the Star from the article with explanation that this award is mentioned only once in Maclean's book and that there is a lack of exceptional sources for it. I explained that the first claim was incorrect (three sources were already presented earlier and I presented four additional ones) and explained that it was wrong and disruptive to remove Star because of the lack of exceptional sources without removal of more exceptional Iron Cross award on the same basis. Yes
Djurisic's death place The article is factually inaccurate regarding Djurisic's death place. Instead of Jasenovac it says Lijevce polje Partial
Djurisic's year of birth The article is factually inaccurate regarding Djurisic's year of birth. Instead of 1907 it says 1909. Partial
Date of Djurisic's death The source used to support date of Djuricic's death is probably misintertpreted Yes
Say where you read it There was cited source which was not actually seen by the authors of this article. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline it was necessary to clarify where was this source actually seen. Yes
Citation overkill There are eight cited sources for one assertion. Partial
Incomplete list of battles in infobox The list of battles in the infobox did not present Uprising in Montenegro Yes
When Đurišić became a Chetnik? The article presented factually incorrect information about the date when Đurišić became Chetnik (October instead of December) Yes
Subsection A large portion of the text (first three paragraphs) in the subsection titled "Collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro" is not related to the collaboration with Italians. This text is about Đurišić becaming a Chetnik commander, instructions he received on that occasion and his inability to "to develop an effective strategy against the Italians or Partisans in the first few months after his return to Montenegro" "despite his possession of these instructions". Yes
Civilian threatened with execution The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. It is information from Tomasevich's 2001 work (pp=141-142) that is already extensively used in the article. He explains that on 21 December 1941 Italians declared that they will held population of Montenegro responsible if their troops were attacked again. On 12 January 1942 Italians specified how they intend to punish population of Montenegro in case of attack on Italian forces: 50 civilians would be executed for every killed or wounded Italian officer. In case of regular soldiers 10 civilians would be killed. No
Why Djurisic's troops were "separated from the Germans" The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. An uninitiated reader could believe based on the above sentence that Djurisic was completely irrationaly collaborationistic regarding Germans, travelling across mountain peaks instead of main roads, just to relieve pressure on the German route of march. Yes Đurišić decided to move to Slovenia? The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. There are sources which say that the decision was reached by the Montenegrin national committee on two sessions No
  • "This was probably the largest combat action between NDH forces and the Chetniks in the previous two years" - The article presents Chetniks and Ustaše as allied. This sentence contradicts it because it mentions some major battles between Chetniks and Ustaše in 1943.
  • Work of Nikica Barić is used to support above assertion, a member of Croatian team on the trial against Serbia.
  • Demonization of Đurišić and Chetniks:
    • In 1943, troops under his command carried out several massacres against the Muslim population
    • a "frontier" mentality towards Muslims
    • Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians
    • "cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina"
    • In early 1942, his Chetnik detachment became more active, especially in eastern Montenegro and the Sandžak against local Muslims
    • The conference was dominated by Đurišić and its resolutions expressed extremism and intolerance,
    • In early January 1943, the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims in the Bijelo Polje county in the Sandžak region of north-eastern Montenegro.
  • On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia also supported by the Italians), and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children.
    • Despite the fact that both Đurišić's Chetniks and the Muslim self-protection militia were supported by the Italians, these "cleansing actions" represented partial achievement by Đurišić of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to clear the Sandžak of Muslims.
    • In mid-February, during their advance north-west into Herzegovina in preparation for their involvement in Case White, Đurišić's Lim–Sandžak detachment received further orders for "cleansing actions" against Muslims.
    • It committed further atrocities against the Muslim population, this time in part of the Pljevlja county in Sandžak, and Čajniče county and part of the Foča county in Bosnia.
    • In a report to Mihailović dated 13 February 1943, Đurišić reported that his forces had killed 9,200 Muslims, including approximately 1,200 Muslim combatants and about 8,000 women, children and the elderly.
    • Is authenticity of this report disputed? (link to Pogledi) He also reported that: “ The operations were executed exactly according to orders. ... All the commanders and units carried out their tasks satisfactorily. ... All Muslim villages in the three above mentioned districts are entirely burnt, so that not one of the houses remained undamaged. All property has been destroyed except cattle, corn and hay. In certain places the collection of fodder and food has been ordered so that we can set up warehouses for reserved food for the units which have remained on the terrain in order to purge it and to search the wooded areas as well as establish and strengthen the organization on the liberated territory. During operations complete annihilation of the Muslim population was undertaken, regardless of sex and age.[41] ”
    • A further massacre of about 500 Muslims, mostly women, children and the elderly, was carried out in Goražde in March.
    • Several women were raped. -
    • The total number of deaths caused by the anti-Muslim operations commanded by Đurišić between January and February 1943 is estimated at 10,000.
    • The casualty rate would have been higher had a great number of Muslims not already fled the area, most to Sarajevo, when the February action began.
    • The NDH forces were motivated by the mass terror committed by Đurišić on the Muslim population in Sandžak and southeastern Bosnia while Drljević was opposed to Đurišić's support of a union of Serbia and Montenegro which ran counter to Drljević's separatism
    • the killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog was an "act of mass terror and brutal political surgery", similar to those carried out by the Chetniks themselves earlier in the war.
    • It was partly an act of revenge for the mass terror carried out by the Chetniks against the Partisans and pro-Partisan segments of the population, and partly in order to stop the Chetniks from continuing an armed struggle against the communists, perhaps with Western assistance.
  • Muslim "self-protection militia"? Is there an article about this militia?