Jump to content

Talk:Chetniks/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Some alternate version of history?

Did I stumble upon some sort of alternative history timeline? This article makes it sounds like the Chetniks were just the Serbian version of the Boy Scouts. Meanwhile, the Ustashe article says right in the opening paragraphs that they promoted "persecution and genocide." How interesting. All the information about atrocities and massacres are relegated to one section at the end, as if they were incidental and unrelated to any other issues, such as collaboration. But in fact, similar to what Direktor has said, it is well known that almost every group in Yugoslavia during World War II participated in gross violence. Moreover, Chetnik ideology played also played a huge role in the 90s, which is hardly mentioned at all.

The lead paragraph needs to be rewritten to include these aspects into the general tone of the article. In general, the ethnic cleansing aspects of the Chetniks needs to be integrated into the entirety of the article. Or else if it's such a well-known fact that the Chetniks have been miscast historically as "bad guys", why don't you put a section in the article about it?

Very often during the UN "peacekeeping" in the Balkans during the 90s, they would stay absolutely neutral and refuse to do anything at all, allowing whoever had the bigger guns to do whatever they wanted. Shame to see that the same thing seems to be happening here. It should be obvious to you that forcing people to use what some consider to be "reliable" sources and nothing else creates a situation where the victors get to write the history, and in fact, is nothing more than a shadow of colonialism. I don't know the history of what has happened with this article, but the current result is clearly less than ideal, and an article on the Chetniks which tries to hide the atrocities they committed is borderline offensive. You can go ahead and take all this back to whatever mediation is going on. GrimmC (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome GrimmC. It needs some work, no doubt. As you are obviously aware, Yugoslavia in general is a very controversial issue, let alone the Chetniks and Mihailovic. Both articles were in mediation for quite some time, and there many deficiencies in this one. The lede should reflect the overall article, and it currently doesn't reflect the terror tactics and cleansing actions used by the Chetniks. This is an article in which small steps are required. Bold rewrites of sections are usually reverted as POV by one editor or another, so we are going quite slowly and trying to develop consensus here before doing edits. I'm not sure which sources you are referring to regarding reliability, but there is fairly general agreement that we use Tomasevich, Roberts, Milazzo and others with due weight. Many editors are sensitive to the bias of locally published sources. You are very welcome to contribute.Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @GrimC. While it is rather simplistic to equate the Ustase with the Chetniks, as the Ustase really were decidedly "worse", so to speak, your point on an euphemistic atrocities section could not be more founded in fact. That section used to be quite thorough for a very long time, but was replaced by Nuujinn with the current version which is, while impeccably written :P, euphemistic and biased (by omission) to an appalling, even offensive degree. It is time. I think, to resume discussion on restoring the deleted content, after which we may be able to adequately summarize the whole thing in the lede.
Of course, the article on the leader of the Chetnik movement, Draza Mihailovic, is far, far worse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, can we please just work on what is there? This 'restoring deleted content' approach will get us nowhere, because it will just get reverted, and we will be back where we are now. I know we should be bold, but that is achieving nothing. I'm no fan of much of the content of this article as it is now, and am as frustrated with this process as much as anyone, but constantly referring to what used to be in the srticle, for however long it may or may not have been there, doesn't help us to move forward, imho. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Peacemaker, I am under no circumstances prepared to accept Nuujinn's removal of sourced and relevant data. I am not (if that is your impression) suggesting that Nuujinn's additions should be replaced with the removed content - merely that those segments of the previous version that were reliably sourced be placed back in there and integrated with the current Nuujinn text (Producer has extracted said segments above I believe). Or at least that the vast majority of the text be restored. I can't see where I am being unreasonable here in insisting that (very well) sourced content be not stricken from all mention without any basis whatsoever. While I do frequently make note of when disputed changes were made, I do not base my position on such grounds. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I'm sorry you are unhappy with the version that a number of us worked out during the mediation. It was your choice to abandon the mediation, and I find your attempts to make it appear that my actions were unilateral tiresome--the draft was in place for a good while, open for comments, and I posted here my intention to more the draft into article well in advance of doing so. You are welcome to your opinion and we can certainly discuss what to add and what not to, but it would be best if you would simply leave off on commenting on editors and focus on the content. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
We are going in circles. Tomorrow I will create a rough draft, a merger of sorts, which we can use as a starting point and go from there. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Resistance and Collaboration

I believe the themes of both resistance and collaboration need to be addressed in this article, and that the current 'Axis Collaboration' section should be retitled 'Resistance and Collaboration'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

i agree with the notion that we need to treat both, but I'm not sure whether or not this is the best approach. My personal notion would be treat things chronologically and geographically. Perhaps we could do both, starting with this section--rename the section and flesh it out as we go. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

My view is three strikes and you're out on this article (I know, we don't play baseball here), so two more IP edits by IP's with less edits that the semi-protection threshold, and we go for semi-protection. We have enough problems making progress here without vandalism by IP editors who won't even talk about their edits on the talkpage. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need at the moment. The IP editing traffic here is pretty light now, and the last IP edit brought the section heading into line with what we had provisionally agreed on above (unless I have misunderstood something, always possible). --Nuujinn (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah the famous Nuujinn "consensus vs sources" angle. Unless I misunderstood something: it was a provisional title. And you're still trying to evade the fact that sources oppose your position. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that both IP's are from Chile and have no other edits, given that Fkp is the only Spanish speaking individual actively involved in our discussions and given the fact that Fkp reverted Direktor's same edit while logged in and then a revert by one of those Chilean IPs quickly followed, I have reason to suspect it's him or a friend of his. Such shady behavior should not be tolerated and, if you guys think the evidence is compelling, it should be looked into further.
Again, since we will be going back on deciding the title after we resolve the actual information within the section, it is absolutely pointless to be editwarring over this. - ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If it's Fkp, it could also be a simple mistake, but I certainly won't object if anyone want to file an SPI. I see no point in edit warring on this either, but I suggested we go with Peacemaker67's suggestion, they made the change and I believe PRODUCER endorsed the change. It is hard to tell, but it appears that Fkp also has concerns with using "ethnic cleansing" in the section heading. If I have misinterpreted anyone's position, please accept my apologies in advance. If my reading is correct, I do believe we have provisional consensus, which DIREKTOR appears unwilling to accept. If he is unwilling to leave in place what we have agreed to, even as a temporary solution, I'm not sure how we will be able to more forward productively. DIREKTOR, why are you unwilling to accept a compromise, even temporary one, that we have worked out in discussion? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the entire Spanish speaking world is mine, mine!!!
Is this a joke? Don´t you producer know about the large community of Yugoslav origin inhabitants in Chile? Are you also aware that if I wanted to, I would have engaged in such "gatherings" years ago, but I never ever did anything remotely similar to that. Not that I need to provide any evidence, or whatever, but I have been very much abscent these last couple of days from my computer, so either you demonstrate whetever you (producer) want to trough proper ways, otherwise spare us from your conspiracy theory... FkpCascais (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm just making sense of the evidence available to me as any rational person would. I could be wrong, but the timing and setting is a bit too much for me to consider it a coincidence. The "proper way" is an SPI, as suggested by Nuujinn, and is why I asked for the input of other participants before going forth with it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser.. "Spanish"? I thought you were supposedly in Portugal, User:FkpCascais? They don't speak Spanish there, you know. Either way, it is very obvious that the IP is at the very least an edit-war WP:MEATPUPPET recruited for the purpose of WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM and avoiding a WP:3RR violation by one particular user. Maybe I really ought to call-up a few of my friends and ask them to revert people for me.

The term ethnic cleansing is sourced, and very well sourced at that. There was no "provisional consensus" on the usage of any other term. User:Nuujinn often attempts to get his way with sweet, flowery manners, only to proclaim supposed "consensuses" in his favor. The fact that the sources do support his position, or support another, is thus entirely secondary in his mind.

No Nuujinn, I've had more than enough of that on Draza Mihailovic. You will please either produce a relevant reason as to why I am not to be allowed to use a sourced term, or you (and your two friends) can please stop edit-warring to remove it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTc)

Oh, I didn´t knew Portuguese was spoken in Portugal until a person named direktor told me... You are sooo intelligent direktor, how was it, extra IQ you said to me that you have? :Oh, I didn´t knew Portuguese was spoken in Portugal until a person named direktor told me... As you once told me, your extra high IQ must be still amasing me.
Anyway, the point is not if the "ethnic cleansing" is sourced, but if it is enough to be a section title. I opose it, as none of the authors gives that subject as much importance as to turn it section title... Some authors don´t even mention it, and most don´t even use the description as such. FkpCascais (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Only until we have dealt with the information within the section should discussion on the title resume. To be honest it does not matter what the section title is for the time being as it's temporary - call it "nfnjkewnrkjwn,hbkgre" if you wish. This is all telling of just how badly each of you want to have your own field day with the title. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Each of who? You are talking to direktor, as he is the only one edit-warring about the section title and changing it from the last agreed one. FkpCascais (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
PRODUCER, if I wanted to have my field day with the title of the section, I would have insisted on the version that I advocated during the mediation. I have not done that. Either we are able to achieve consensus through discussion, or we are not. I thought we had achieved consensus on what we would use for the time being, do you agree that that is the case or was I completely mistaken? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating word games, its interesting how the word "consensus" appeared out of nowhere. There is no "provisional consensus" or "agreed version" or "consensus version", we did not agree to ignore the sources and not make a note of "ethnic cleansing". And we shall NOT compromise with the sources for the purpose of appeasing POV-pushing. Producer, by proposing a temporary title, apparently made the mistake of giving you the chance to sell it as a supposed "consensus version". But let me emphasize again: this is not a "consensus section title". Unless the situation with the sources changes, there is simply no way I will ever alter my position that "ethnic cleansing" should be restored as part of the title in some capacity.

Thus far in this discussion, the only goal of users FkpCascais and Nuujinn was to misrepresent sources they disagree with in any way they can. They do this with all the means at their disposal: whether it be by plain omission, by repeating statements of opinions and word games, by declaring fake "consensuses", and when all else fails - by WP:EDIT-WARRING. I'm always backing down when User:FkpCascais starts his edit-wars; one of these days FkpCascais, I will not do so and you will get us both blocked for a long time. You were already warned repeatedly about this sort of behavior.

I insist that we settle this matter once and for all. Can users FkpCascais and/or Nuujinn present any reason why I should not write and incorporate in this free encyclopedia the term ethnic cleansing with regard to Chetnik cleansing actions? (as is explicitly stated in the sources) Other than their biased "disagreement" of course. If not I shall do so, with carefully cited references, and if I am reverted in spite of sources, without any basis, I will bring the matter up with the community at once. I have had enough of this wheedling evasion of sourced facts I've been witness to for years now. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A), as I have repeated said, we're just talking about the title of the section. B). You do not own the article. Peacemaker67 made the change, both I and as far as I can tell, PRODUCER and Fkp were fine with it as a temporary title. You didn't even comment, and instead reverted Peacemaker67, myself and Fkp. Please, do whatever you like in terms of filing reports. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I "heard" you the first time, we are indeed talking about your removal of all reference to ethnic cleansing from the title. The question is: how does that fact affect anything? Your personal perceptions of the term notwithstanding, there is no reason whatsoever to think the term is controversial, radical, or even at all opposed in any way. If it is a sourced fact that a large part (in fact the majority) of the section in question covers events described as ethnic cleansing, what possible justification could there be for removing all mention of ethnic cleansing from the title? To use Fkp's military analogies, I did see that you "retreated" into the title itself, but that is a very "weak position" - the title only reflects the content of the section. The fact that we are talking about the title does not mean we (you) are now suddenly allowed to make our own conclusions. Needless to say, "cleansing actions" is a euphemistic term used by the Chetniks themselves, and is thus biased by default.
I do not know how anyone can conclude that I think I "own" the article - I am not the one who has thus far opposed every single proposal to in any way alter his own, unilaterally written, personal sections of the article. And I do greatly enjoy filing reports, Nuujinn, if that's what you're hinting at. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Meh. Retreat? This is not a battleground. If the term were used consistently by sources dealing with the subject of the Chetniks in depth since the term appeared, I'd have no problem with using it in the title. In terms of reports, please, file away, I'm responsible for my actions and words and willing to answer to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm being "poetic" like our own Fkp here. By your definition, meho, no term in existence would be used "consistently". If I were to apply this same principle to your own additions I could remove practically everything: all I'd have to do was find a couple of sources that do not support whatever I want removed and presto - its not used "consistently" (it helps when I can define the term and invent my own "policies"). Fortunately, though, we do not need to concern ourselves with your own self-defeating definitions and impossible requests. WP:V will suffice: you have challenged a claim, and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES have been provided. This is not to say you have ever, or will ever, admit you are wrong in a any particular point, but that's pretty much end of story as far as policy is concerned. And the title, of course, should reflect the content according to MoS.
And this is all without going into how absurd it is to exclude the sources which talk about "the cleansing of ethnic groups" as sources in support of ethnic cleansing. We're giving you too much as it is. On that note, here's another source:
  • Lindsay, Galbraith p.235 [1]
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You brought up Lindsey above, and I have already told you what I think of using him-he is not a historian, it's a first person account, and thus it's not a high quality secondary source. Seriously, DIREKTOR, you demand, and rightly so, that we use high quality sources for material you apparently would rather not include (for whatever reason), why are you lowering your standards for this material? As for admitting that I'm wrong, I may not do so as often as I should, but it does happen. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You believe I am lowering my standards? Interesting. My only standards always were and are that the publication be scholarly and perhaps non-locally published. If these are high standards then guilty as charged am I. Lindsay's publication is scholarly, it is not a primary source, and we shall certainly not limit ourselves to historians (another weird new "policy", that would exclude a large portion of our current sources). Anything else?
As for admitting you're wrong, well, people say there are UFOs and leprechauns, but I've never seen one. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(Sigh). Yes, primary, as in written in the first person, a "historical memoir" (according to the back cover) of the author's experiences while serving in the OSS. See Wikipedia:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. He was there, directly involved, and writes from his personal experience. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(Facepalm). First of all, please read WP:PSTS, just so you are clear on the fact that primary sources can be used so long as they are not interpreted in any way (which is OR). That's one thing, lets place it aside. Now, as regards the quote itself: it is obviously not primary, but secondary. That is to say, the reference to ethnic cleansing is not, and does not have anything to do with, primary, first-person accounts. It is secondary, it is itself actually based on primary sources, and had you actually read it I'm sure you would not be making these sort of statements (either that or you don't really understand Wikipedia sourcing practices).


You're being given way too much as it is, and still you keep raising the bar. There's a good reason I don't believe in leprechauns Nuujinn. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, page 235 says "The Serbs called their terror 'ethnic cleansing', a term which was used again in 1991 and 1992." No footnote is provided, and he is claiming that the Serbs used the term during WWII, while other sources claim the term was coined in the 1990s. You claim his statement is based on other sources, would you please point to the sources upon which Lindsay relies for this statement? And I did not say we cannot use a primary source--I am saying that it is not a high quality secondary source from an expert in the field the kind of which we should rely. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but how about we accept 'Terror Tactics and Cleansing Actions' as a provisional title and concentrate on the content, then decide what the content suggests the title should be? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You bluff old traditionalist, I think that's a fine idea, funny we didn't think of it before. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"Ignore it and it'll go away"? You've not seen it yet, Peacemaker, but putting off the resolution of primary disputes is a practice seen way, waay to often in this whole Chetniks quagmire - that's a big part of the reason why its lasted 2 years now. The sources are what they are, they are not likely to change, and therefore neither is anyone's position - and the issue of the title is not going to disappear. But, as before, I bow to the will of the majority and will reluctantly drop it *gets up, puts on his frock and ceremoniously bows*. As long as the current title is accepted as provisional only. Nuujinn, I request that you please cease referring to it as a "consensus" version in any context. The only consensus here is that the temporary title it is temporary. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-Serbian Chetniks

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

Well, we have many local authors used as source in all these related articles. I beleave sources non-local authors should be used for sourcing controversial questions, however I don´t object the use of local sources, if reliable, for the non-cotroversial ones. It all depends if the claims are controversial and exceptional, or not. Btw, in the case of the section you want to insert, I didn´t objected only because the authors were local, but because the claims were controversial and were being sourced partially by a former Ustasa officer and a condecorated Partisan which obviously may have a conflict of interesting for sourcing the issues to which they were used to... FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Then these related articles that you mention should also be stripped of local sources. You wish to pursue a policy of using local authors only when the claim is not controversial to you. What is "controversial" will vary from person to person so that is an incredibly poor gauge to use. In the previous discussion you explicitly made us aware of the apparent "Croatness" of some of the authors used in the massacres section and dismissed Ana Došen solely on that basis. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that looking for better sources makes sense, but let's leave the material in for the time being as we look. Also, I'd like for us to reach some agreement in the current discussions prior to moving on to other topics. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear about whether this section is even needed in this detail. Let's start with Tomasevich's (Vol 1 pp173-174) observations that 'The Chetnik forces were, of course, almost exclusively Serbs except for a large proportion of Montenegrins who thought of themselves as Serbs', and 'DM had a small group of followers among Croats in central Dalmatia, especially from the area around Split and Sibenik, most of them either former members of the strongly pro-Yugoslav organisations of the 1920's such as ORJUNA or younger people out of such families, but the group was too small to have any political or military significance'. He also says 'a few Croats in the Croation Littoral (Primorje) were also pro-Mihalovic', and 'In Slovenia there was a small pro-DM group headed by Major Karlo Novak', and 'a few Sandjak and Bosnian Moslems also supported him.' That's it. Seems to me it should be renamed 'Support for the Chetniks from non-Serbs' and if it summarised the above, it would more than suffice. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. As a medical student from Split, I've heard of quite a few locally famous instances of Dalmatian people, from old Split citizen families even, who did not consider themselves as having any specific cultural links with continental Croatia (other than Catholicism), and thought of themselves as Yugoslavs. Doctors particularly for some reason: Dr. Jakša Račić, the 38th Mayor of Split and member of the Chetnik movement during WWII, who began modernizing the city's hospital system, is a good example. The Chetniks, unfortunately, identified themselves with Serbian ultranationalism, rather than the Yugoslav unitarianism of King Alexander I, and attracted only very marginal numbers of non-Serbs.
Now that I'm done with my local history lesson :), let me be clear and say I agree with you there Peacemaker. At the very least all those subsections with one paragraph each need to be removed, and the info needs to be summarized in a way that reflects the marginal significance of the "token" non-Serbs in the Chetnik movement. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this section ruins your plan to portray Chetniks as pure Serbian ultranationalists... I object. You just want to have the info that siuts your purposes... FkpCascais (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, it ruins it terribly :P. Unfortunately for how you want to portray the Chetniks, it is the sources that portray them as Greater-Serbian ultranationalists - not me. "The Chetnik forces were, of course, almost exclusively Serbs" - that is a fact, and its going into the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It already is in the article... FkpCascais (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kindly stop removing information from the lede. Especially since you yourself agree that it is accurate. The only reason you are removing the origin of the term from the lede, which was there for years, is that you think its embarrassing for an anti-Muslim movement such as the Chetniks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais on the grounds that the etymology of the word does not in my view, meet the 'importance' test for it to go in the lede. It is covered adequately in the Etymology section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue seems to be rather subjective. Call me an "article conservative", but I for one see no reason to remove it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
...or should we say "there is no reason to include it, beside pure provocation." FkpCascais (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
See thats what I mean: you want accurate, related information (which i did not add!) removed, because you think its some sort of a "provocation". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing "accurate" about that edit... The word comes from a Serbian word Четa. The rest is irrelevant unless you want to make some strange point... Anyway, we only use etymological meaning in articles if there is a direct relation with the subject, otherwise we don´t start articles like, exemple,
Germany, from Latin: Germanicus, bla, bla... FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course its accurate, what are you talking about? The word "chetnik" is Turkish in origin. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In this source (Vucinic/Tomasevic) we have on page 83 the description of how non-Serb Chetniks existed but their overall number was negligent. Anyway, they existed. Btw, this source is very interesting, as it sumaries events around Chetniks. It starts on page 81. I agree with all Tomasevic says here. It deals with the subject of animosity of Chetniks towards Croats and Muslims (and explains its reasons), and also interesting is to see that in a 3 page summary he DOES NOT mention any ethnic cleansing neither terror crimes. I am not saying we should ignore them, but Tomasevic here gives a good clue about their overall importance within context and events... Thus my deep objection to make 3/4 of the article talking about collaboration and ethnic cleansing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. Just trying to keep this section 'on topic' of non-Serb Chetniks. I think you mean negligible? In that case, it seems overkill to have a separate section with a heading for each negligible non-Serb Chetnik element ie Slovenian, Croatian etc. I believe it could be adequately covered in one section or better yet, in a more general sense within another section, allowing us to get rid of this section completely. I'll address your mention of Vucinic/Tomasevich re: ethnic cleansing in the section for that discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich could not have used the term "ethnic cleansing" in the 1970s since it was invented (and institutionalized) to describe Serbian cleansing of Bosnian Muslims (in that very same region) in the early years of the 1990s conflict. He does use "cleansing actions", however, and that, coupled with more modern Harvard sources that use the term "ethnic cleansing", pretty much closes this issue as things stand now. Serbian "cleansing actions" against Muslims in Eastern Bosnia are not only ethnic cleansing as such - they are the original ethnic cleansing and the inspiration for the term. Drop this, Fkp. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, you cite one source from Harvard, which uses the term in quotes. It is a reliable source, to be sure, but what other sources can you cite that use the term "ethnic cleansing" in direct relation to the Chetniks in WWII? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the first place, without conflicting sources I do not need more than a single one. In the second place, I believe I listed two more. In the third place, the "cleansing actions" described by pre-1990s sources can be referred to as ethnic cleansing in accordance with Wikipedia sourcing requirements and the definition of the term in question. We are not required to follow the sources verbatim, in fact that is discouraged. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, it is not that Tomasevic couln´t have used the term, but he doesn´t talk about that at all in that 3 page Chetnik-related summary. Big difference. FkpCascais (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Peacemaker, I object the total removal of the section, as it is needed as way to balance the excessive focus on Serbian nationalism over Yugoslavism. As much nationalist as they could be, the Chetniks defended indeed the restauration of Yugoslavia, and they had a element of Yugoslavism within the movement, which is largely ignored until here. Now, what indeed Yugoslavism meant back then can be seen in Tomasevic p. 6 and it is diferent from what Yugoslavism is perceved in pos-1945 era, thus being not so understood by non-Serb population nowadays. I´ll try to bring more on this. FkpCascais (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. A whole section with four subsections on an element of the Chetniks that is reckoned to be both politically and military insignificant (from the Tomasevich quote I used earlier) is extremely hard to sustain an argument for, given the sources. It is, as both Tomasevich (and Vucinic) state, 'insignificant'. I can see the sense in including the information that there were a few Croats, Slovenes and Muslims that were pro-Mihailovic somwhere in the article, perhaps in Formation and Ideology, but it would also need to be observed that they were both politically and militarily insignificant. As far as your Yugoslavism point is concerned, a brief explanation of that would also need to be tempered by what Tomasevich (on the same page) said about the fact that type of Yugoslavism was undermined by Serbian hegemony between the wars. You can't just pick and choose the bits you like. That is the essence of imbalance. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And generally, the fact that we have a section on a topic that is 'politically and militarily insignificant' to the Chetniks (ie non-Serb Chetniks), is one of the reasons I believe the UNDUE tag is appropriate. It makes them (non-Serb Chetniks) appear important, whereas they are not. That is the definition of undue weight, surely. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections at all to put things in context, right the oposite. That is why I brought the Tomasevic source, because as much sources I could get on Yugoslavism, Tomasevic´s explanation here is very usefull and necessary anyway. My intention was never to present Chetniks as defenders of Yugoslavia without explaining what the Yugoslavia meant to them.
With regard to the section, it is kind of comparable with the collaboration issue. Similarely, the collaboration sections give the wrong perception as if their relation was uniquely based on collaboration, when in fact things wer not that way... One wants to focus on how Chetniks only collaborated, and another wants to focus how Chetniks had also support among other nationalities. Fixing both would be fair. FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


@Peacemaker67. Just in case there was any doubt, for the Chetniks' sake, User:FkpCascais is indeed perfectly capable of posting this sort of stuff in perpetuum. User:FkpCascais has known full well for years that he cannot counter sources without sources, that is nothing new to him, but he continues to do so for psychological effect and for the purpose of disrupting discussion. Even though unsourced positions should be ignored entirely, it is difficult to ignore them completely when someone just keeps repeating them over and over and over again. People often compromise with him simply because he is "there" with his persistance and plain "refusal to agree" - in spite of anything the sources might have to say (or not say). We have seen, e.g. that FkpCascais has no problem just saying the sources are "wrong" because he thinks so - and yet he has never ever brought a source of his own to this discussion.
This is all amazingly effective, mind you. In this way the user has managed to bog down threads and whole discussions, in effect prevent the entry of sourced information he "personally" opposes, and even remove sourced information from the article entirely.

@User:FkpCascais. The same old song.. As per usual, you do not have sources and are only disrupting discussion. Take your personal views to some forum. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing sections titles having in mind the overall events. Your post Direktor, beside useless is kind of aggressive... I am becomng fed up of you. FkpCascais (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's about enough of this rot. This section is supposed to be about Non-Serb Chetniks, and I have provided a reliable source that says they were 'militarily and politically insignificant'. I have also provided quotes about the support (or lack thereof) of various non-Serb ethnic groups. What is in this section is irrelevant to other sections unless they directly relate to this section, and the Chetniks so-called 'Yugoslavism' is not (described by Tomasevich as 'a facade'), except as an explanation of why few non-Serbs supported them. On that basis and unless someone produces a source that contradicts the source and quotes I've provided, I will shortly rewrite the section to reflect the source I've used. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have put in a sourced summary para. My next step is to go through the individual subsections. First up is the Slovene Chetniks. What appears to have happened here is the Slovene Alliance, who were anti-communist forces raised by the right wing political parties in Slovenia, have been conflated with Chetniks, which they were not. I will rewrite this subsection to reflect this, and source the actual numbers of Novak's Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Slovene Chetnik subsection done. The big problem with the previous subsection was that the previous editor had conflated the Slovene Alliance with the Slovene Chetniks. As a result, I decided to replace the subsection completely as it was unworkable in its existing form. I also had a big problem with the fact that those of us who don't read Slovene/Serbian/Croat were being asked to take all of the sources for this subsection on trust. A big call imho on an article of this type on English Wikipedia, especially when sources in English contradicted the material in the previous version. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Working on the Muslim Chetnik subsection. We aren't seriously using Enver Redzic as a reliable source? Wasn't he a Partisan? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed him. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the list format is necessary. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not finished yet. I know there is a source re the appointment of an overall Muslim Chetnik commander by DM and the activities of the Muslim Chetnik Corps, (other than Redzic, of course), but I didn't get time. I'll get there. Once I've hunted it up and finished we could review the format. It seems to me that whilst all the points are about Muslim Chetniks, they are not interrelated, and rather than give them all a separate paragraph (one idea per paragraph), I thought I'd use the list format. Is there a WP policy on this, or are we just using normal English protocols? Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Very well then. Here is the policy you're inquiring about: WP:EMBED -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems to me it meets the criteria for a 'children' list as defined in the that guideline. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are we trying to deal with WW2 in detail in an article supposedly about all Chetniks?

On reflection, it seems to me that this article is (naturally) dominated by discussion of the Chetniks in WW2. It seems to me that it would be far clearer if we had a general article about the Chetnik movement across time (which would not need to be terribly long), and an article about the WW2 Chetniks. Just having a section in this article entitled WW2 doesn't cut it. There are a number of important themes in WW2 that need to be covered in discrete sections, and it just doesn't make any sense at present. We are trying to be all things to all Chetniks and I just don't feel that it is working. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're feeling is due in part to the overwhelming detail that certain aspects of the Chetniks receive in this article, while other aspects are basically ignored. Writing in general is easier to improve by pruning first and expanded from a strong core, and this article doesn't have a strong core. But that's just my opinion. If we do split this up, we must be careful not to let any of the parts become POV forks, which, IMO, this one already is-I don't believe we can treat intense topics such as terror and cleansing actions by one group in the Balkans in isolation from other groups, given the intermingling histories. Again, just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

War on our people!

Peacemaker et al. I think you should be aware of the fact that User:LAz17, banned for block evasion and sockpuppetry, is currently lobbying on the Serbian Wikipedia with his new thread "War on our people" (Rat na nas narod) and, of course, in a typical nationalist tactic, he's attacking any level-headed Serbian user that opposes his point of view as being "anti-Serbian". I and others are described there as "Greater-Croatiansists" and other offensive nonsense. Please be aware that it is entirely possible we will (again) be seeing the participation of users with preconceived notions about how things are done on this article, and its quality in general. -- Director (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how debate on Serbian Wikipedia (on Serbian) is relevant to English Wikipedia? Second, due to fact that you are prime example of Croatian activist and propagandist, this is fine example of psychological projection. I even doubt that you are one person, but a team of activists. Besides that, why are my references about Croat, Slovene and Muslim Chetniks deleted, although I provided all relevant peer reviews and links? On other hand, tabloid newspapers from former Yugoslavia (in Serbo-Croatian)remained as relevant references. Why Tomasevic represents 2/3 of references in this article, that should be unbiased? Why are words of Croat economist(Tomasevic) or Western dentist(Cohen) more relavant, then works of western historians and intelligence officers about this controversial topic? How come that you, as Croat, have monopoly over articles about former Yugoslavia in English language? Even if you are impartial (which you are clearly not), you are in conflict of interests here. Main contributors should be persons not personally involved with this issue, without agenda, and without personal connection to former Yugoslavia. As we can also see, from debate with Italian members, about massacres of Italians, that you are clearly ethnically motivated, and prime example of deterioration of English Wikipedia, into ethnic agitprop. I'm not so surprised by your intellectually dishonest and monopolistic behavior, since you just behave accordingly, but with fact that you have obvious protection from some individuals 'above'. You (and most ex-Yugoslav) members should be eliminated from 'contributions' in English Wikipedia articles, since you are unable to be neutral.--Ganderoleg (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Right here we go. I'm not going to dignify this trolling with a proper response. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed draft section

Here is the draft. Admitedly it is long in comparison to other sections of the Chetniks' article, but that is only because those other sections have not been afforded such attention and given as much context. If we are going to trim some sections I'd advise to relocate them if possible - for example a good chunk of the draft deals with the Chetniks' general ideology and could be moved to the "Formation and Ideology" section. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day PRODUCER. i think we will need to get a few more sources in there (Roberts and Milazzo & a few others) and I consider there is a need to restructure to some extent within the section. i also think that given the emphasis this draft gives to the 20 Dec 41 Instruction, we will need to briefly explain why Karchmar questions its origin (around DM's movements, travel times etc, the content and style and some of its implications regarding the way it was written.) However, I am happy that it it reflects most sources (I would, however like to have some time to check them in my own copies). Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for input from Nuujinn and DIREKTOR... -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well sourced and very thorough, but leans too heavily on Tomasevich and Hoare (the latter concerns me as, although he is clearly a reliable source, his bias is to be blunt, excessive) and, given that it is so long and detailed, puts too much weight on the cleansing actions. That may well be "...because those other sections have not been afforded such attention and given as much context," but that begs the question as to why that is the case. Perhaps we should turn our attention in concert to those other sections and work them out to a similar extent? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Come now, Nuujinn, if you oppose any of the facts laid out by Tomasevich - please challenge them properly. You cannot seriously be suggesting we exclude the source on the basis of your perception of his style of expression? And frankly, even if we were to agree that Tomasevich is "blunt" (which we do not), I disagree that it is a flaw with an author of scholarly literature.
Generally speaking, you seem to be far too sensitive to authors actually callinHg something what it is. Your efforts here have always been directed towards making the text as mild as possible, and since the Chetniks are always the topic - the Chetniks are the beneficiaries of your sensitivity and timid approach. These are brutal "Balkans-style" massacres, prosecution, and pogroms. Its what they were. All sides committed them, and this article is supposed to cover those committed by the Chetniks.
As usual, what you want (us) to do in essence, is search all the publications for the mildest, softest terminology, and argue that we should use that for the sake of "balance". If anything, with your version Tomasevich (the best source we have) is under-represented in the text of this section. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Nuujinn is actually very correct in his observations. You direktor accuse Nuujinn of wanting to use the mildest terminology (I would say "balanced", but anyway) but on the other side most of what you did was basically collecting the heaviest terminology, and doing you best to include them all in the article. Producer has made an effort to write the section, but we indeed have the problem of the article being then too much focused on the "ethnic cleansing and terror", something that has not receved similar weight and proportional ammount in any of the scholar works considered as reliable sources. I already mentioned this issue of unbalance in the past, because lets not forget that we have already an exagerated almost half of the article screaming "collaboration"... FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not exaggerated. The Chetniks collaborated, and it's an important part of their story. Why they collaborated isn't properly covered. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
In due time Nuujinn. If we tackle too many sections at once it will be overwhelming and we will get ourselves nowhere. How could the paragraphs from Tomasevich and Hoare "put too much weight on the cleansing actions" when the that's the primary purpose of the section? Again, keep in mind almost half of this section talks about the Chetniks' ideology. That's where too much weight is. It could be briefer and relocated to the "Formation and ideology" section. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
With respect, and perhaps I should have been clearer, the reason I took on rewriting the section was that it was long enough before to unbalance the rest of the article, thus placing undue weight on the cleansing actions. This draft would do the same thing. DIREKTOR, I did not even imply that I disagreed with facts laid out by Tomasevich--to do so would be OR. I did not say that he is blunt--you misread my statement, I was being blunt, and not about Tomasevich, but rather Hoare, who, while a professional historian, appears to have a very strong bias, which is why I tend to avoid using him. And I'm very aware that all sides committed atrocities, and I am of the opinion that we simply cannot deal with the systematic atrocities committed during this historical period in the individual articles about the various groups. I would much rather have an article specifically on these events, so that each is presented in context. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
We should not "cripple" this section so that it lines up with the quality of other poor sections. That is an incredibly terrible strategy.
We have already given enough context to address your concern.
Your opinion that Hoare (Oxford University Press) "appears to have a very strong bias" is not a valid reason to remove him. We determine the inclusion of sources by their reliability and by what peer reviews have to say, not by our own opinions. Besides everything in Hoare's paragraph is strictly substantiated fact and none of it is his opinion. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I simply disagree that the section in the article as it stands is currently crippled--it was arrived at after long discussion, and with input of multiple editors. And I did not suggest removing Hoare, I simply stated why I choose to avoid him--my goal has been to use sources that lack such an obvious bias, since we have plenty that do not have such obvious bias. Note that I have said he would be considered a reliable source. I feel that if we are to use this as a basis for a rewrite of the section in question, we will have to include additional reliable sources. And I hope you will show similar enthusiasm in expanding the other sections. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the discussion and it's nothing to boast about. Whether you're "avoiding" Hoare or "removing" him you are doing the same. I'm not going to argue semantics. Again everything in his paragraph is strictly substantiated fact and none of it represents his opinion so just drop it. As for additional reliable sources, by all means they should be included, my draft included what I had at my disposal. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In a related article Yugoslav Partisans PRODUCER has made this edit adding unsourced ethnic cleansing to Chetniks and replacing all Serbian-related content by Croatian one. More nationalistically based edit is impossible. FkpCascais (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we stick to this article on this talk page please?Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to get the ball rolling on this again. Peacemaker, in response to your suggestion of adding more sources, I fail to see Roberts make any mention of massacres committed by the Chetniks. As for Milazzo, I do not have his book in my possession so if you could add from his book that would be helpful. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Roberts p 68 for starters, which would support some of the draft regarding Djujic and Jevdjevic's actions. I'll see what is relevant from Milazzo and if I have anything else from Roberts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If no one has any objections I will incorporate the draft into the article. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem here. Happy to work through any edits whilst it's in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing disrupted

Someone has deleted sources from the References section. Tomasevich Volume I is actually missing, and someone has deleted links in the Ramet reference. Never mind, fixed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The redundant bibliography section was removed. I forgot to add Tomasevich's first volume and I figured I'd remove the google books links since the majority didn't have them. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Halyard

I can't see the point in having Operation Halyard in a separate section. It is covered in sufficient detail and in the right place chronologicaly for this article in a later section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is to emphasize as much as possible the one notable anti-Axis operation conducted by the Chetniks, even if its military significance is non-existent... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed about the motivation, it's just duplication. I propose deleting it and ensuring the Halyard info in the later section reflects the basic details and DM's award resulting from it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Motivation for Chetnik Collaboration

I'd like to bring up a relatively minor issue. The lead currently lists the desire to destroy the Partisans as the single and exclusive motivation behind Chetnik collaboration. This is unsourced, and I think this is not quite accurate. The benefits of collaborating as opposed to actively resisting are many and obvious, above all there is the benefit of not getting attacked and annihilated (such as was very nearly the fate of the Partisans during Fall Schwartz). But the Chetniks also operated as auxiliary forces: that is to say, they of course received food, ammunition, weapons and supplies in general. So apart from the ability to fight the Partisans (a goal which the Chetniks in my opinion did not pursue with particular vigor), through treason Chetnik formations obviously gained both security and supplies, and I think it is not accurate to simply list the "in order to fight the Partisans" as the motivation. To be clear, I believe that issue is too complex for the lede. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

later in the war, there is also the issue of collaboration for survival. But the level of nuance needed to explain their long-term anti-Axis philosophy and ultimate intention to resist (basically passively until the time came), then how the Chetniks became hopelessly compromised by their gradual reliance on collaboration to obtain arms and avoid destruction at the hands of the Germans, and their refusal to actively resist them in a similar way to the Partisans, is a complex issue. Milazzo and Roberts do a good job in explaining this, but it is a question of making it brief enough to fit a WP article. This is why I think we should be trying to cover the whole issue of Resistance and Collaboration in one section called just that. Axis Collaboration just doesn't cut it. It is far more complex than that, and needs a proper explanation of its development from an intention to resist to fullscale collaboration in the hope of survival. It could be done chronologically (perhaps using each year as a subsection) with key aspects dealt with geographically as necessary. I'm very interested in progressing a more nuanced approach to this, as I don't think the current section really scratches the surface of what was really going on. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I beleave another option is to separate the WWII by time periods. Years perhaps. I remember that when a problem of lenght happend in the section Ante_Pavelić#Usta.C5.A1e_regime one of the proposed solution was to divide it in time periods. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Essentially that's what I'm saying. Resistance and Collaboration are intertwined and central to this article. Much of what occurred with the Chetniks can be placed in that context. However, the ideological issues and their results are also significant and need to be dealt with separately. The proposed 'Resistance and Collaboration' section would be divided up into 5 subsections, one for each year 41-45, showing what happened in each year. I think a chronological approach makes sense. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, FkpCascais. The claim made in the text that combating the Partisans was the only motivation for collaboration is not sourced. Apart from that, I removed no information. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you also moved content from the lede which is of significant importance. The lack of homogeneity in the Chetnik movement is central to how things developed. I referenced that phrase from Milazzo, and it should remain in the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I know it is significant, I know it is sourced, and I did not (re)move it from the lede [2]. I'm not lying Peacemaker :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
my apologies, you moved it in the lede. Not sure why it fits there rather than where is was. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I see a few problems there. I ultimately understand and agree that a chronological coverage is indeed superior and more appropriate. However(!), as you might have noticed, in this article there is undoubtedly continuous pressure to downplay collaboration. What I am afraid of is that integrating the collaboration section may result in the opportunity being taken to cannibalize the information therein, with large chunks ultimately getting deleted. On the other hand, I also understand that a huge chronological "World War II" section, incorporating all Chetnik WWII activities, cannot realistically go into such detail on collaboration as a section specifically tasked with covering it.

So in essence, if this is going to be done, I would like all active participants to agree beforehand not to try and use such a large-scale article restructuring to either 1) over-emphasize the marginal (Milazzo) resistance activities, 2) or decrease the emphasis on Chetnik collaboration from about the level it currently has. Otherwise, I foresee troubles in the proposed course of action. While such an agreement would be non-specific, it would provide a form of guarantee that efforts would be focused on actually improving the coverage of Chetnik activities (by introducing a chornological format), rather than pursuing this or that goal from the collaboration/ethnic cleansing dispute.

Writing a chronological "WWII" section was indeed my ultimate intention when I started editing this article ages ago, but I gave up on it when the pressure really came down and I sensed that to touch virtually anything of the current make-up of the article is a recipe for infinite edit-wars and talkpage conflict (any mention of collaboration in the lede was vehemently opposed, e.g.). Of course then the mediation froze the article etc.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. It's just that can't see this going anywhere (other than some improvements around the edges, reinforcing reliable sources and improving citation of what is there, and I consider that it is not a great article at the moment. I would have thought we could have a sensible length section lede paragraph which covered the issue in broad brush and then break it down by years followed by a concluding paragraph wrapping it all together. It's pretty ambitious for this article though... Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is to be done, I would start with putting together collaboration paragraphs (one, two or more) for each of the war years. If those can be agreed upon the majroity of the conflict is essentially settled. It can potentially go rather quick if we stick closely to the sources and use the text and quotes from the Collaboration section. So, before we start, I propose two steps: a) the general agreement I mentioned above; and b) a general inquiry to make certain none of the information from the current Collaboration section is challenged. With the latter measure an editor can write text without wondering whether someone will attack at least some of the collaboration info he presents. The problem is also that, based on past experience, regardless of the sources, FkpCascais is highly unlikely to actually explicitly agree that Chetniks committed collaboration and/or ethnic cleansing, and might at best grudgingly cease protesting against it.
The other issue, the possibility of over-emphasizing resistance, is a lot more slippery. I can't imagine FkpCascais won't want, for example, to have more text on resistance than on collaboration, or he might want to have the paragraphs covering resistance always above that on collaboration, etc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, lets ask beforehand: is any port of the current collaboration section (based by and large on Chapter 7 of Tomasevich's Volume I), challenged? And by "challenged" I mean challenged on any policy-relevant basis. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no objections whatsoever? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, if by 'by and large' you mean also including the observations of Milazzo, Roberts and Tomasevich Vol 2 (that show nuanced differences from Tomasevich Vol 1), then no. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
And if you take into consideration that I object to the structure of the collaboration sections as it stands now, since focussing on acts of collaboration out of context makes the section inherently POV, and feel that it is too heavily based on the one Tomasevich work. To put the collaboration in context, we also have to include pressures on the Chetniks, including the actions against taken against them, and what else they were doing at the same time, and by that point, we're pretty much writing chronologically. But I have no objection to pursuing a year by year version that treats both Resistance and Collaboration, per Peacemaker's suggestion. Also, I can't speak for others, but I'm basically on holiday for a week yet, so my time is currently pretty limited. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
to me, one of the things that really is missing here is that DM had an idea of what resistance was that just didn't fit the situation in Yugoslavia. He wanted to remain in a passive resistance mode until the (Western) Allies came to Yugoslavia, and this was diametrically opposed to what the Partisans wanted to do (ie resist immediately and gain maximum control over the situation as soon as possible on their own terms, with all that entailed for the unprotected civilian populace). To survive in that environment, the Chetniks had to at least make non-aggression arrangements with the Axis to survive and fight the Partisans, but once the Partisans survived the German's best efforts in Fall Weiss, the Chetniks were stuffed, damned by their collaboration and abandoned by the Allies. This is essentially Milazzo's point. That needs to be covered (in addition to the reaction against the Ustasha genocide). Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I never opposed any of that, indeed I think I said so myself at one point. I.e. they did collaborate with the enemy, but the conflict here is more about that fact bothering others than impressing me. Where the Chetniks lose their old-world charm, for me at least, is the ethnic cleansing, Greater-Serbianism, and the idea of an even more Serb-dominated Yugoslav state (as compare to the pre-war Kingdom). Who knows what would have happened to Croats, Slovenes, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, i.e. the "traitor minorities", had the Chetniks gained military predominance in the immediate aftermath of WWII. They were hardly anyone's idea of the "western democracy" resistance.
So yes, that aspect is definitely necessary. Nuujinn, I want to make myself clear on this. 1. I agree that a chronological organization would be superior to the current one. 2. But such an article restructuring should not serve you and FkpCascais as a pretext to remove sourced information from the article without consensus. If a particular piece of information is to be deleted, agreement must be reached beforehand. 3. I do not agree that a section that fairly, proportionately, and without bias represents reliable sources can possibly be "POV", regardless of its topic. Your position in that respect imo gives the impression that you would like to use article structure to de-emphasize and downplay what the sources have to say on that topic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, this would go faster if you would stick to the content and leave off making statements about the intentions, motivations, and desires of other editors. And you don't make the rules here, the community does, so you can make any statements you wish, but it is not up to you to decided what must and what must not happen. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-consensus removal of sourced information from the article will be reverted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi all, I have started going through all the inline citations and comparing them against the material in the article. I have already found several that do not appear to be supported by the citations, and I wonder if those editors that are interested in the inclusion of this material might like to clarify with page numbers or explain how the reference supports the material. To make this section read sensibly, perhaps each issue could be placed behind a single colon, and the discussion of that point could proceed from there. That way we will be able to see what has been said about each issue.

  • "Progressive". The first issue is with Milazzo p. 182. The reference appears to relate to the word 'progressive', yet that word does not appear on p. 182, and neither does any synonym. The issue with the Tomasevich ref for the same word is that no page number has been provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Avoiding accommodations with the enemy". This issue is with Milazzo p. 21. This page makes reference to the 'break with Ravna Gora' of three detachments that shortly thereafter went over to the Partisans. If we want to demonstrate that there is sufficient weight to the statement that 'some Chetniks did not make accommodations with the enemy', this is not the example to use, as it only relates to a very short period (to Sep 1941) when things were pretty confused and DM didn't even have a handle on who was with him and who wasn't. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating. These are all Nuujinn's quotes. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Collaboration agreements" and "using the enemy". These relate to Tomasevich (1975) p. 169. That page relates to Moljevic/Greater Serbia, and there is no reference to either collaboration or 'using the enemy' on that page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you've added one of mine. I'm not home right now (and wont be for some time) so I can't re-check, but I am reasonably sure I did not misquote Tomasevich there. Could you please elaborate further on your third point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
here's the first lift from the lede, '...into collaboration agreements: first with the Nedić forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, with some of the Ustaše forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.' This is cited as Tomasevich (1975) p. 169. p. 169 is in Chapter 6 - Chetnik Objectives and Organisation. The page in question refers to Moljevic's 'Homogeneous Serbia' in its entirety.
and here's the second lift from the lede cited to the same page, '...the Chetnik movement itself referred to this policy of collaboration as "using the enemy".' The p. 169 ref is at the end of the "using the enemy" phrase. There is a third use of p. 169 later in the Terror Tactics and Cleansing Actions section which is correctly cited as it relates to Moljevic. See http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yoCaAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=tomasevich+chetniks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H-0CT9rKDcmuiQf_s4yhAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=moljevic&f=false Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember the exact page number, but as I recall that stuff is actually from the very beginning of Chapter 7 (which should be around p.200). There Tomasevich writes a few pages where he discusses collaboration in general terms and I know I used that part as the basis for my edits (since that is the lede). Could I trouble you to review the first page or two of that chapter? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I think I know what's the problem: the actual page number is probably "196" rather than "169" :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Right on. Dyslexia. Have the same problem myself. I'll fix them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This citation query is now fixed and closed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
*facepalm*.. knew it. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph - Loss of support and final war years. This is a Tomasevich citation but the relevant page doesn't relate to the content of the second para of the section. I've tagged it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


  • The Milazzo quote on "progressive" actually comes from the preface of The Chetnik Movement & the Yugoslav Resistance. Milazzo states:

"The overriding question is how a movement whose leadership was in no sense pro-Axis found itself progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities and the native Quisling regimes. What was it about the situation in occupied Yugoslavia and the Serb officers’ response to that state of affairs which prevented them from carrying out serious anti-Axis activity or engaging in effective collaboration?"

no issue with this one now it points to the right part of the book. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Milazzo p.182 supports the term "marginal resistance activities"

"The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order"

no issue with this one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As you point out however, the quote from p.21 seems to be misrepresented as supportive of "avoided accommodations with the enemy" in a general sense.

As things stand now, the proposition that "some Chetnik detachments avoided accommodations with the enemy" is entirely unsourced. Especially in such a general context where such a sentence suggests that some specific Chetnik units consistently throughout the war never engaged in collaboration. This is actually contrary to a number of sources that have been quoted here (among others Tomasevich, Ramet, and Milazzo just above) who simply state that the Chetnik movement (in general terms, without further clarifications) engaged in collaboration. There is no reason that I can see to use any other format, such as "most Chetnik units collaborated". And, in light of said sources, the proposition that some Chetnik units continually avoided collaboration throughout the war needs support - which it is currently lacking.

whilst I don't see a significant problem here, what it does is now imply that all Chetnik units collaborated. I don't think we even know this. Not sure how we express this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that the phrase "most Chetnik units collaborated", which somehow seems to have found false references, is but a clever variation on the old "good Chetniks-bad Chetniks" propaganda line often found in post-Yugoslav Serbian texbooks, which has been frequently pushed on this and other articles. The suggestion is that "some" Chetniks were the "good Chetniks" who never collaborated, while some were the "evil Chetniks" who did collaborate (the latter are often presented as a minority, or even confused and equated with the tiny and relatively insignificant Pećanac Chetniks). I would really like to finally see a reliable source that states "some" Chetnik units never collaborated - and which ones.

agreed, this is a problem. There were a lot of Chetnik detachments, and I have never read about one that didn't. Let's face it, it was a long war, and without arms and ammo, they would have been doing much resisting. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple additional points:

  • The accurate statement that "the Chetniks were not an entirely homogeneous movement" is placed in front of (what is essentially) the "some Chetniks never collaborated" claim. This is good information, and relevant for the lede, but placed in front of the latter claim is part of a misleading paragraph structure that supports it. I suggest it be slightly moved.
I actually think this one needs more work. Milazzo's observations about the real pervasive lack of cohesion in the movement as a whole, and DM's lack of control over many of his nominal subordinates needs much better coverage both in the lede and in the article in general. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition, while the Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army were the first movement to be formally declared, it has not been made clear whether they were the first to actually engage in resistance activities against the occupation. This seems to be a rather relevant point. The Partisan Žikica Jovanović Španac is traditionally accredited with firing the first shot of the war on 7 July 1941, and the Užice Uprising is popularly considered to be the first significant insurgency. It is entirely possible that this perception of the general public is founded on communist propaganda and ignores preceding resistance activities by the Chetniks. However, if that is not the case, a note should be made of the fact that the Chetniks, while founded before the Partisans, did not initiate resistance activities - since the current text seems to suggest they did.
I know Tomasevich deals with this, and concludes that they might have been formed first but did not actually resist first. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

-- Director (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

With regard to "some Chetnik detachments avoided accommodations with the enemy". This claim is simply unsourced in the context of the entire course of the conflict. I agree that the implication is made that all Chetnik units collaborated at one time or another to some degree or another. However: that is the implication of the terms used in the sources. In our lede we made a distinction and state that "some Chetnik units collaborated" and others "avoided collaboration". The sources, on the contrary, simply speak of the collaboration of the Chetnik movement in general terms. The point I am making is that we must adhere to sources, that is to say, unless the sources make distinctions among the Chetnik movement we certainly should not do so. E.g.
  • Milazo: "...a movement which (...) carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order."
  • Ramet refers to the "the Chetniks" having "...a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces."
  • Tomasevich: "'Use of the Enemy' - as the Chetniks liked to call their form of collaboration - seemed the only answer, and this was the course the Chetniks decided to pursue. Thus, over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetniks reached agreements on collaboration... [with this Axis faction and that etc.]"
etc.
None of them refer to "some Chetnik units" when stating that the Chetnik movement engaged in collaboration. All I am saying is that when the sources discuss collaboration they make no distinctions and refer to "the Chetniks" or "the Chetnik movement" in general terms. Therefore 1) if there is an implication that no portion of the Chetniks were an exception from the "policy of collaboration" - it comes from the sources themselves; and 2) with the sources such as they are, the burden of evidence lies on one attempting to show that some portions of the Chetniks did not collaborate. This may have been the case for all we know, few can really claim they are familiar with the history of every single Chetnik detachment, but we cannot make such claims, or imply anything of the sort, without sources. Perhaps Nuujinn will provide a real source to that effect, he has long maintained that only parts of the movement collaborated.
Distribution of ethnic Serbs in Yugoslavia, 1981 (Montenegrins are in light blue). Note the western ethnic Serbian territories as distinct from Serbia proper and Montenegro in the east.
To address the other points. I agree that the lack of cohesion is a subject that needs to be elaborated-upon further. As far as I can remember, Draza Mihailovic was described as having strong control primarily over the Chetnik units in Serbia proper and Montenegro, that is to say, the Chetnik units in southern Serbia and Montenegro (northern Serbia and Vojvodina are not suited for guerrilla warfare and after 1941 saw little action). The Chetnik units in the western Serb-populated areas, such as the Krajina and northern Bosnia, were more-often-than-not cut off from DM and he could exert less direct command there (though he did dispatch "personal representatives").
And finally, could I ask you to insert said Tomasevich's observations in the article? -- Director (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I must reluctantly agree, although Milazzo does say 'almost' throughout the war, which I assume relates to July to November 1941. I also believe 'Chetnik units' is improperly precise based on the general dealing with collaboration in the sources, and the sentence should be reworded to consistently relate to the movement. There is also the need to deal more fully with Milazzo's observations about the lack of homogeneity of the movement, but that and the additions from Tomasevich will have to wait until I get back home and have a further look at them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned I consider the proposition that "some Chetnik units never collaborated" entirely possible (I did not seriously oppose it), but also one that, in light of the terms used by the sources, requires direct support. If such support is found, it would be very interesting to find out which units these were. While it is a complex issue, the heterogeneity of the Chetnik movement is beyond any serious dispute. That alone, however, does not by any means indicate that those portions that were relatively autonomous did not collaborate. Indeed, in my personal view, it seems all the more likely that local commands left to their own devices would be all the more inclined to achieve an understanding with the local occupation.
      (I shall reword the paragraph to refer to the movement consistently per your request.)-- Director (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of Template: Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

This discussion is for the use of the subject template in the Chetniks article. It is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the article that Chetniks collaborated, therefore the use of the template is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Years active

How come Chetnik were active from 1904-1946? Then who were those chaps from '90s in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? --Wustenfuchs 14:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Many groups in the '90s claimed they were "Chetniks", but the scope of this article is the real, historical organization - not the "Chetnik wannabes" from the '90s. Croats pretty much used the term "Chetnik" as derogatory term for all Serbs. -- Director (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Who decides what the real organization was? Šešelj receiving the Chetnik vojvoda rank from Đujić was a significant develop in the runup to the war. Many Serb generals (primarily in Bosnia) either received the title or self-identified with it over the course of the war. Chetnik iconography was widespread in paramilitary units. Vuk Drašković, opposition leader during the war, was also quite pro-Chetnik.
Chetniks of World War II were not a homogeneous or unified force. They were simply a series of factions who self-identified with the same symbols and ideas. Đujić's forces in Croatia, Đurišić's in Montenegro and Mihailović's in Bosnia and Serbia had drastically different experiences and actions over the war. So much so that one faction even came into conflict with the others. Even during this period it is difficult to assess a "real Chetnik" - the criterion was essentially a beard and a cockade (there are numerous instances of units simply shaving and trading the cockade for a red star during the earlier parts of the war). The Chetniks of World War I, World War II and the wars in the 1990s represent a single movement, albeit three distinct periods and phenomena.--Thewanderer (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Wanderer, you've wandered into an area you're unfamiliar with. The Chetniks were one organization that wasn't particularly homogeneous due to war circumstances. Do not try to split them into several.
Some Serbian paramilitary units adopted the name "Chetniks", that does not make them a continuation of the organization this article covers. Yes, they're certainly worthy of mention in this context as a sort of "legacy" of the Chetniks, but that's all.
As for that clown Seselj, I do hope you're joking. He found that poor old man and got him to declare him a "vojvoda"? Does that mean that the Chetniks were an organization between wars? No they weren't. Is a "vojvoda" necessarily the title of the head of the (non-existent) Chetnik movement? No it isn't. Is it a title one can actually "bequeath" on another? No, it isn't. That whole affair is more of a joke than aything else. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I'm not expert on this subject as you are, but I don't remember that Chetniks ever existed like institution with tradition. When Mihailović founded them in Ravna Gora back in '41 he do that on his own. So how can he claim he is succesor of older Chetniks (from 1910s)? I think it's the same with those from 90s, but can't really say what's all involved for someone to claim he is Chetnik. I remember Đujić declared Šešelj Chetnik vojvode, so this gave him some sort of legacy to be successor of those old voivodes. I know Đujić later hated him, don't know really why.
As I understood from the article, Mihailović founded "Ravna Gora Movement" who were referred to as Chetniks, even though it wasn't their official name. So he had no connection with Chetniks from Serbia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. But Šešelj's Chetniks (if I may call them so) have some connection with Mihailović's Chetniks through the "Movement of Serbian Chetniks of Ravna Gora" of Momčilo Đujić. And why their activity from the 1990s is not mentioned in the article? It should be. No matter if they have legacy to represent them selfs as Chetniks or not, but it's how they called them selfs anyways. We should expand article a bit. --Wustenfuchs 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It (Chetniks) was their official name for a period of time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
And they called themselves "Chetniks" throughout the war. They and the rest of Yugoslavia and the world. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chetniks/Archive_6&oldid=1146567976"