Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Terms of discussion

In the interest of speeding things along, I wonder if we could have a brief discussion of the terms of engagement for once the draft is posted to the article. Since anyone will be able to join this debate, I suggest that we specify groundrules in the header box at the top of the page. Groundrules would be based on WP policies regarding talk page discussions. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not again.. The only "groundrules" specific to this discussion should be that actual textual article changes be discussed at all times, and that all claims or statements be closely supported by sources. The main danger here is devolution into a forum. For the rest we have Wiki policy, and I see no point in "basing" anything on it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, we have to make progress somehow. We're always bound by WP policies, so I am assuming Sunray is asking for us to proposal additional guidelines for us to follow voluntarily. Rules I would like to propose for consideration (and these are off the top of my head, so be prepared for some stupid ideas):

-An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.

-More agressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.

-That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.

-That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize.

-That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something the said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.

Just thoughts, feel free to call me out on any of them. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In talking about the discussion in general the main question to ask is: why did the previosu discussions fail? The rest are peripheral concerns that do not help us get rid of this annoying problem. In my view it is frankly obvious that the discussion devolves into a forum-like debate completely detached from the sources and any specific text changes.

It is really completely unnecessary to impose any "special rules" here, apart from demanding that unsourced claims be disregarded entirely, and that "general debates" be avoided. This, of course, is in-line with Wiki policy and guidelines anyway.

This is not the mediation, and I did not leave its flawed debating structure just to see it rebuilt here. I feel that if we are ever going to finish this, its time to try another approach, two rules: 1) propose specific article changes and 2) base them on sources. That is all. This will accomplish two things: we will be discussing what the sources say and not what users say, and this discussion (conducted properly this time) will have an actual effect on the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I do agree that the two conditions proposed by Direktor should be paramount. I also think that Nuujinn makes a very good point that all editors have an obligation to stay within WP policies. His additional suggested terms seem calculated to assist participants to do that. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Sunray (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well apart from the two a more stringent (but sensible!) enforcement of WP:NPA also to me seems to be a good idea, but I don't think it necessitates a special seperate "rule" as such. WP:NPA is the rule.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment about personal remarks

::::::Regarding of which, I can´t resist not showing my disapointmend about the strict scrutiny that my comments go trough, while other users comments stay unoposed. Sorry, but beside the difficulty of being numerically in disadvantage here, having this included sounds too much. Beside, the same editors that made the personal remarcs against me seem to be here ironically "agreeing" while doing the oposite. Just as exemple, this comment directed towards me yesterday (!) is in the discussion: "As I keep repeating: outside of nationalist phrases and folklore, you have no idea about the course of this war, and are not really equipped to discuss it. Your list of "statements" is an excellent example of how this thing goes on. You just keep saying things, things that are demonstrably and obviously wrong, without any kind of sources or even a layman's general understanding of the conflict." Do I have to explain how every single word in that comment is wrong and offensive towards me? I refrained from answering to such provocation hoping others will correct it, and that didnt happend. I´m sorry, but I see no reason to have a differenciated tratment from the others, and yes, bothers me very much and I see it as a disturbing negative factor for the discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, one of the points we have agreed to discuss (I asked and you all accepted it), seems to have come to an agreement, but I see no one further answering me or including the agreed in the draft. So, once I tried to edit the draft I was edit warred, but if I do things asking others to include the agreed I receve ignorance? Either we do as agreed, either there is no use agreing on anything, and yes, by now it is me loosing in both situations. FkpCascais (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Fkp, the desire to "win" is one of the problems here. There's no winning on WP except making a good article. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your illumination Nuujinn. Seems clearly that ignoring personal remarks to one side and doing the possible not to include in the article what rightfully belongs there must be a ideal way of getting such an article in your view. Honestly, I see too much people here talking too many things they in practice don´t follow and often do exactly the oposite. FkpCascais (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to call me out on something, be specific and produce a diff. Otherwise, I'm just not interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just stick to the facts and sources FkpCascais and leave aside the remarks about other editors and we will get along swimmingly. Nobody is fussy on these pages about strongly expressed views - but when ad hominem arguments become the substance of the debate it is counter-productive and disruptive. Might I also suggest that participants pick a particular discreet point per section so we don't get great, long all-purpose repetitive debates.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in other words saying exactly the same thing to the other participants. As you can see in the previous discussion I sticked to the facts and sources. While you seem to find this type of attacks against me perhaps o´right, I don´t see at all why should I be demanded more than others. Anyway, and knowing this doesn´t take nowhere but it does put the facts on papper, I also made several questions regarding the draft which are still unanswered, not sure why. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. no. No you weren't. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just some comments and questions and I'm sorry to be blunt.

-This discussion is devolving like every other one we've had.

-We apparently have consensus that the draft is better than the current version of the article. I cannot move it because the article is locked. I have asked a that an admin move it but that hasn't happened. We've been working on that draft on and off for over a year now I think so everyone has had plenty of time to talk about it, and we can continue to edit once the draft is in place either directly on the article page itself or in the mediation space. If I am reading the above correctly, we cannot get it moved until we agree to some terms here about how we are to proceed.

-Fkp, if you feel you have a valid complaint about DIREKTOR and that you cannot get satisfaction here, WQA is thataway. I see comments like the one you quote from DIREKTOR, and I agree that it would be better all around if he did not make them, but it sure as hell isn't my job to defend you. My suggestion is to find a mirror and take a long look.

-Fkp, you said we came to an agreement. I stop answering you because I didn't see any point in continuing that thread at that time. I would tell you why if I could do so without violating WP:CIVIL but that's simply not possible. The agreement you think we (you and I, I cannot speak for others) reached, doesn't exist.

-DIREKTOR, I've got thick skin and an old pair of asbestos undies left over from my usenet days. I'm not happy unless someone calls me asshole at least once a month. I drink a power breath milkshake made from corn cobs, garlic and jack-mackeral ice cream every morning (it will be interesting if anyone knows that reference, I just hope I still make it the way mom used to. I appreciate that you can take it, too, but restraint will be required if we are to make any progress, as failing to do so just provide fuel for a fire. I know that you believe we should not have to impose additional constraints to be able to do our jobs here, but apparently we do, since we have not succeeded yet.

Now, back to the point of this section. I made some proposals, can we focus on them individually below? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will in turn be direct. Yes, I do see a consensus to use the draft that was developed by participants in this long process. However, there is no appetite for continuing to witness the bickering that has been going on here. The article remains locked until the concerned editors agree to discuss it in an reasonable and orderly manner. You have made what I consider to be constructive proposals for editing harmoniously. Let's see if we can get some sort of consensus on them. Note that consensus is not unanimity. Sunray (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I'm not hopeful. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No offence to either of you, truly, but there is simply no way I shall restrict myself with an arbitrary set of requirements. "Consensus is not unanimity", true, but consensus is binding (to a certain extent) only with regard to article content - there is no provision for special talkpage rules to be imposed upon other participants by way of a "consensus" on the question (i.e. "we all agree these are our mini-policies for this talkpage, so you are forced to follow them"), and I certainly cannot imagine justifying any sanction or the altering of a user's posts with any such rules. This is a Free Encyclopedia after all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think you're missing a key point--you either agree or not, and what you do is up to you, we cannot enforce these rules on anyone. Strictly voluntary. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that we have policy and do not need additional special rules. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, but I suggest you reconsider--one definition of madness is repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different outcome. We've been doing this for over a year, and I see no substantial difference in the nature of the discussions from when I first started working in this area. There are a lot of eyes on us right now, and what happens next is entirely in our hands at this particular moment. I doubt that will continue to be the case unless we manage to come to some consensus about how to proceed, no matter what any of us do. If we do not come to some consensus about how to proceed, the only solutions to the problems I can envision involve bans of one type or another for a number of us, and I'm about ready to start drafting an arb com proposal myself. You recently said elsewhere that you have been repeating yourself on a particular issue for months. I think that's a fair statement, but the real question is, what do you expect to change by continuing to repeat yourself? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh.. rest assured that insanity is not defined by anyone as "repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different outcome". :)

While it is certainly necessary to enforce certain aspects of policy more strongly than before, that does not mean special rules we invent on the spot are required. I mean no offence, believe me, but I honestly do not think any of the rules will help us get one iota closer to ending this. In fact we've already wasted time and effort on them. The only thing we need here is that users, or more specifically User:FkpCascais, finally start supporting their statements, positions and claims with actual sources (as opposed to just saying them over and over and over again).

As I said below, I don't have much more to say on this. Imho the stuff below is really unnecessary and unhelpful, and this thread is a very mediation-like waste of time. Simply enforcing WP:V and WP:NOT, while focussing on specific subjects of dicsussion in order to avoid rambling tirades, will get this thing moving. More specifically, User:FkpCascais, who is the only "He Did Not Collaborate" participant has no sources - none whatsoever (amazing when you think about it). Indeed, simply by demanding that he does not post any (unsourced) "beliefs" for the first time in 15 months, we shall imho be able to make rapid progress. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the insanity definition, google it, it's misattributed to variously to Einstein and Franklin. I think you're wrong about the rest of it, but time will tell. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Insanity" is in fact defined in a number of ways, "repeating the same things" is certainly not one of them.. :)

Well since we seem to have time in abundance lets give it a go anyway. All I ask is that all statements and claims be based on sources, and that those that are not be entirely and completely disregarded as the gibberish that they are. Lets give it a shot when we can, trust me? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, regarding this stall in progress. After weeks of this I am now going to have to once again take a break from Wikipedia (but I will be keeping a close eye on goings on here). I will be able to edit maybe once or twice daily and I would appreciate it if we put this thing on ice for now. Incredibly, the discussion has been sidelined and derailed once again by User:FkpCascais's unsourced comments and claims - in spite of my significant and incessant efforts to the contrary - as well as by discussions on the best way to discuss discussing the discussion. This last thread really takes the cake.

Let me repeat: the sources are more or less in agreement on the controversial points in this debate. By simply sticking to the sources and NOT the users (a revolutionary approach!) the core of the dispute could have, should have, and still can, be resolved in a matter of days. But here we are once again engaged in inane nonsense discussions, while the issue is stalled for some stupid reason:

• it is disruptive and unnecessary to prevent the inclusion of the draft in the article by way of imposing "conditions" on the participants. Its a legitimate, undisputed edit.
• even if the draft is not posted in the article, what the hell is preventing us from discussing this issue anyway? The draft is available to all, and has nothing at all to do with the dispute in the first place.

More nonsense, more stalling.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

More aggressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That editors working on the article restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or whatever other venue we wind up working in, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Opposition to idea of proposals in general

I don't think this is the way to do this. I will not be voting and, to be clear, no matter what I do not intend to abide by any rules other than Wiki policy. What I have proposed is the simple re-affirmation of two principles of editing lacking here (as opposed to "special" rules): that all statements be sourced, and that all discussion relates to text changes (WP:NOTFORUM). I will refactor my comments as I please, I will make my posts as long as I deem necessary, and I will not be subjected to more rigorous standards of behavior than policy proscribes.

This is not the mediation, this is an article talkpage. Can we stop discussing about how to discuss and move things along please? Not that I'm in a hurry, but my personal two-year limit on the duration of involvement in any one discussion might run out.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If editors cannot agree on terms for discussion, the only approach I can see working is for there to be rigorous observance of WP policy. Due to the walls of text that are added to this page daily, I cannot see effective discussion without some sort of restriction on length and frequency of posts. That suggests that moderator(s) will have to take a strong hand in maintaining limits and keeping discussion focused on particular topics. It would be better to have voluntary agreement amongst editors. Let's see other comments on Nuujinn's suggested guidelines and wrap this discussion up very soon. Sunray (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the necessity of sourcing all claims and focusing on the text? Lets say those are the terms and just move on. They're necessary either way.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have said above, those are prerequisites for an effective discussion. Given recent experience on this page, however, I am concerned about the length of posts. What would you propose to address that? Sunray (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If we closely define the subject of discussion (such as e.g. "collaboration in the lead") the problem shouldn't appear in any significant way, imo. After all, large posts are not a problem in and of themselves, it is when they are rambling tyrades on a million seperate subjects that they represent a disruptive element. If a user sticks closely to the subject, imo the discussion will not be disrupted or derailed even if the post is larger.

More to the point, to address that problem I would propose a note at the start of a discussion section that would advise users to 1) closely support all claims, 2) propose specific article changes, and 3) stick to the subject of this particular discussion (e.g. "resistance in the lead"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, those are pretty close to one of the proposals above. Feel free to recast my wording if you can make it work for you. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see only your third proposal is something I might support, the rest I am quite strongly opposed to, particularly the bit about talking about the lead last - the lead is what started all this and is the actual dispute, and I would like to start discussing the actual dispute while I'm still young. Also notice that the three points above are nothing that policy does not proscribe anyway, i.e. these are not special "rules" I am proposing but a mere reminder of, and a stricter adherence to, Wiki policy.

But I have said pretty much all I have to say about this. I will add that all this "discussing about discussing" is giving me nasty flashbacks to the mediation. Gentlemen, shall we move this along sometime this week? I can't fathom why posting the draft is conditioned on something, or why we can't discuss this anyway without the draft posted in the article, but since everyone seems to think all that is necessary for some reason - do it asap. Let the admins unblock the article for you to post the draft, and lets get this over with. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What you are proposing DIREKTOR is more of the same - which everyone else is sick to death of. FkpCascais makes unsourced assertions and you repeat yourself rigidly and ad nauseum in black and white terms. The talkpage fills up with aggressive bickering. Nothing else can be discussed. Nothing can be agreed. It is interesting that you are so absolutely certain despite sources that there is no such definition of insanity - despite it being a quote with which most English speaking editors are entirely familiar. Can you not see that "my way or the highway" is simply not working here? We need something to break the logjam. For example - if everybody else says leave the lead until last, how do you propose to enforce dealing with the lead first? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

To that I respond with one resounding: NO. I am NOT proposing "more of the same". What we're seeing in this thread is in fact "more of the same". We have still, up to this point NEVER had a discussion that is based only on what the sources say, incredible as that may sound. By simply demanding that all claims and proposals be based on references we would in fact be trying something "new and exciting" in this conflict. Why do you think this mess lasted for a year and a half? How do we solve disputes? We see what the sources say and we follow them. This has, quite unbelievably, not been done at any time. Throughout this mess, the two sides of the conflict have been treated completely equally, as two typical "squabbling Balkanites" - completely without regard to what the sources have to say. I.e. it did not matter whether dozens of sources are posted or not, there was zero impact on the course of the discussion.

To me the prospect of implementing useless and annoying "rules" that do not help to solve the above described fundamental flaw of this debate - is quite frankly annoying to the extreme. Not only do the proposals not address the main problem of this dispute (namely unsourced gibberish), but the proposals also demand that we discuss teh central issue last - once again! The sources are perfectly, 100% clear on this issue, and none, repeat none support FkpCascais's position of excluding collaboration - the whole thing was ridiculous from the start, now its just absurd.

I am getting old discussing this thing, Fainites, I want to stop blundering about, see what the sources say, and put together a consensus draft on the controversies in the lead - thus ending the goddamn dispute! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration in the lead

I've started this thread to see how participants would like to cover the collaboration of Draža Mihailović in the lead. I must point out this is the central and main question of this problem, which started some 16-17 months ago when User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement to that effect from the article's lead (this text was removed by the admin User:Sunray as a "personal attack" so I'm posting diffs; the conflict started with the edit of 04:49 16 February 2010 [1], altering text added on 3 September 2009 [2] and continued for days [3] [4] [5] [6] etc.).

I'd like everyone to please state their position, their actual text proposal, for solving this central issue. At this point there is little doubt that Draža Mihailović did commit numerous acts of collaboration and did actively (quote) "condone the collaboration" within his movement. However, if it is still held that Mihailović's collaboration should be disregarded and censured from the lead altogether, lets hear the reasoning behind such proposals as well.

One thing though: all claims and text proposals should be based directly on sources and should be in accordance with as many sources as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect I'll do anything with the article until we get guidance from Sunray on how he would like to proceed, as I see no point in continuing along a path lined with dead horses. I think I'll spend some time reading through the WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM docs to try and figure out those processes work in the meantime. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All this thread is about is to see what kind of edits the participants propose, if you have some idea on covering the collaboration in the lead, please post it so that your position in might be clarfified, as a prerequisite to actually discussing article changes.

I will bring this matter to the attentions of MEDCOM. Seems the discussion has been stopped in its tracks once again. Frankly it feels like the mediation was simply "transplanted" here (in spite of my best efforts) along with all its problems. I come here, try to have the first-ever sourced discussion on this, with edit proposals, and the same "blocks" are brought over.

While I won't jump to conclusions, if nobody wishes to discuss article edits the course is clear. Since nobody seems to have any real objections or alternative proposals to the paragraph introduced earlier, I move the paragraph be restored into the lead, at least until an alternative might be agreed-upon, in light of the fact that it is completely sourced and the facts therein generally undisputed (by sources). It was removed "because the mediation is on", and that has been shown not to constitute a legitimate reason for preventing edits to a Wikipedia article per WP:M. Simply "opposing" an edit without grounds is not sufficient cause to exclude it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy. Nuujinn is right. Also, please correct first all wrong you said about me in your opening statement. FkpCascais (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything "wrong about you" in the opening statement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. This entire statement is totaly phalse: "16-17 months ago when User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement". I stated that the lead could not be simplified to what you wrote, and your addition to the article was never neither long neither standing statement. You added it, here: [7] and soon after everyone can see how you edit warred numerous users about it (at least 10 rv just on that). And here are my first edits in the article, [8]. I never said that Mihailovic did not collaborate (please find diff for your claim, and your edit was evidently disputed for all the couple of months it was there, so in both claims you are wrong. PS: Sorry Sunray, but I had to present the real facts. FkpCascais (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor and Fkp, the personalized exchange is noted. Would you both now stay on topic (if there is anything more to be said on this thread) and leave past grievances aside? (Please don't respond here, just do it). Sunray (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Direktor's only goal is to block any kind of improvement on this article and that trying to work with him is pointless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, because during the thirteen months I was going along with the mediation everything went swimmingly... had you bothered to read anything of the above you might have noticed I support the inclusion of Nuujin's draft. All in all another useful, constructive comment JJG. Do you have a lead proposal or are you just here to post a personal attack or two? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's opinions, and even his very existence as a human being, are of no concern to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly glad to hear that, though I am flattered you still think of me as a human being. Consider yourself invited to join the "We Hate DIREKTOR Club". Now, do you have an actual proposal? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As I consider human beings are sometimes the foulest of all animals, being included thought of as one is not necessarily a compliment. Anyway, I would appreciate if the person above could refrain to address me in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think that Direktor and JJG have each made themselves clear as to their feelings. Let's get back to the discussion. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If the sources confirm collaboration with Germany, Italy and Ustaše (and they do), the only question is how to present this info into the lead in a way that will be OK with everybody. Once you guys solve this problem, the body of the article will be easier to present. For example, Draža Mihailović collaborate with Germany here (add reference)...Draža Mihailović collaborate with USA here (add reference)..and so on.--Kebeta (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they don't or, at least, it's more complicated than that. What I actually wrote in the first version of the draft was "Part of the various Chetnik groups gradually fought more against the Communist-led Partisans than against the Axis occupiers, some of them becoming auxiliary militias for the Italian and German troops, with Mihailović occasionally condoning their collaboration as a mean to defeat the communists. The Allies came to consider that Mihailović and the Chetniks were at best ineffectual, and shifted their support to the Partisans." I think that's somewhat accurate, though it could be rewritten. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The JJG version is very accurate and it goes along what User:Paul Siebert proposed here. The entire point of separating the collaboration out of context is done with purpose of acusation and punishement, and that is POV in my view. We already concluded once that the collaboration would fairly be described as "ocasional and oportunistic", and it is basically well described, although obviously we can discuss words, but presenting them simply as "collaborators" is simply untrouth and never happend that way. I beleave this source, Lindsay and Galbraith p. 274, actually describes well the relation between Chetniks and Axis: Chetnik official words towards Germans in a meating between them: "You are our enemy...". I mean, having in mind that Mihailovic was head-hunted all time, and that the anymosity between Germans and Chetniks was that big that they openly say to eachother that they are meating but they are enemies, says it all. FkpCascais (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nope"? :) Actually, JJG, you are dead wrong once again. You often make strong statements and people assume you're speaking from authority, but the actual facts are quite different indeed. The sources DO directly and unambiguously confirm numerous acts of collaboration of Draža Mihailović. And, as Kebeta says, the only real question is how to present them in the lead (per WP:LEAD). @FkpCascais, we have Draža on record ordering his regional commanders to "cooperate with the Germans" and explaining that he has to maintain a favourable "public opinion" by pretending to be opposed to this (to quote his own damn words), your clever use of actual Chetnik propaganda(!) and WP:OR does not really effect the facts in any decisive way.
Since the fact that the sources are have been actually' copied down from the publications by hand right on this talkpage is having no effect on the apologetic argument of the opposing side, I will simply keep copy-pasting them all the time. Since I really can't copy down entire chapters of books, these few more explicit examples will serve to prove my point. Draža Mihailović has:

• offered to "place himself at the disposal" of the German occupation (28 September 1941)

The Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". The two representatives further gave the Germans their commander's guarantee for the "definitive clearing of communist bands in Serbian territory" and requested aid from the occupation forces in the form of "about 5,000 rifles, 350 machine guns, and 20 heavy machine guns"

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration

• dispatched personal representatives to authorize the main collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and Fascist Italy (Major Boško Todorović, 11 January 1942),

Mihailović was aware of and condoned the collaborationist agreements [with the Italians] into which Jevđević and Trifunović-Birčanin entered.

— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias p.148

An agreement was concluded on 11 January 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks

• personally commanded some 12,000 to 15,000 Chetnik troops in a joint military operation with German, Italian, and Croatian quisling forces (January – April 1943),

In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.236

Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić: "I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected..." Note 122: But at his trial Mihailović stated that "there the operations were led by Ostojić, because I had no time to occupy myself with these matters, since I had really come to visit my troops and get acquainted with the real state of affairs."

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.241

• ordered his subordinates to "cooperate with the German forces" (20 November 1944), adding that he himself "cannot go along because of public opinion",

On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329

• and conferred personally with the german authorities "on five different occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945." (Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329)

I would dearly like to hear the verbal acrobatics that are to follow this post. Are these facts to be ignored by the claim that I am "misrepresenting sources"? Then post your sources which contradict these assertions à tout de suite. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, stop doing this. Which Chetnik propaganda??? Walter Roberts (writer)??? Franklin Lindsay and John Kenneth Galbraith??? All my sources cited in this discussions are found here: User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23, and nothing there seems remotely similar to propaganda. This must stop. Each post of yours is highly provocative and disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am really not sure any more what is this. Is this some wp experient to see the patience of different users? Because this is not normal any more... FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"You are our enemy" is a direct quote from Chetnik WWII propaganda proclamations, Fkp. Once again you simply continue as if no references have been posted. Now please, stop ignoring the sources and tell me how you would cover these controversial actions of Draža in this article's lead? And please, don't repeat the above stuff about how the guy had a "full life" and there's "no room".. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here direktor: Franklin Lindsey and John Kenneth Galbraith. See page 274 and 275. If this is Chetnik propaganda, well, we have nothing to talk any more. It was the commander of German Southeast Armies, Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, who told him what he was told by Chetnik representatives on that meating. Chetnik representatives said: "You are our enemy, you have invaded our country, we abhor having to deal with you, but we are forced to do so in order to get guns to fight out greater enemies, the Communists." I beleave the sentence descibes perfectly well the relation between them. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys stepped on each other --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is strange. I certainly didn´t edited any direktor´s comments. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird.. (lets not start a new section though). I'd still like to hear FkpCascais's comments on the above references. I am curious if you can disprove them in some way, Fkp, or failing that, I am interested in hearing how you would cover such controversies in the lead? Should you ignore them once more, you will surely vindicate my continued complaint that you simply "go on debating" regardless of posted references.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I already answered to you. For time being I find JJG solution as the most NPOV and the one that most fairly describes the real situation for those years. You also brought the experienced editor User:Paul Siebert who also seems to favour a lead with that kind of description. It is strange that you said that you agreed with him, however, here you seem to defend something different. FkpCascais (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

JJG's highly biased and one-sided "solution" completely ignores the above references and facts (Paul does not support it, Fkp). On what grounds should we ignore the above? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"One sided"? The JJG proposal (or any similar one) is actually "no sided", and that is exactly why it is good. Your sources are usefull for the article, but for the lead they are out of context, as we should certainly enter then into several inside explanations for making the readers get the real idea.

With regard of Paul Siebert, I have the impression that he disfavours any simplifications as the ones you propose, but anyway, if you disagree, maybe we should ask him for his opinion again, although it is not my foult if we come to bother him again, because I beleave I understood very well what he expressed, meaning, objectivity and neutrality, very similar to the approach JJG used in his version. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If by "out of context" you are referring to the fact that Draža also resisted the occupation at certain times and places, we can add the context without much dispute I am sure. I would argue that Draža's resistance and collaboration each provide the context for each-other. My question is: why do we ignore these sources and thsi aspect of Draža's WWII activities? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is "ignoring" your sources. You can´t not consider the fact that you need to present the situation as it really was, and you can´t leave the idea that they just collaborated, when in fact the collaboration also happend only in "certain times and spaces", not forgeting the extreme difficult situation in which they were found. However, even at those collaborations in certain times and spaces, there are some inconsistences, that even make me doubt if the word "collaboration" is really the adequat one to describe their few joint actions against Partisans, beside the fact that they kept the open war between them considering themselfs enemies trough all time, beside resistance efforts troughout time periods of the war, from first to last year. Not sure if that is collaboration, since collaborating forces in WWII were something quite different. FkpCascais (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning my dreams: I would not dream of forgetting any aspect of the difficult situation the Chetniks faced (in fact I said myself that in Serbia and Bosnia they were more or less forced to collaborate). I would not dream of forgetting that collaboration took place at certain times and places, and I would not dream of forgetting the resistance that also took place at certain times and places.

However, I must oppose you and say that you are suggesting we ignore the sources, as you support a version which quite plainly does. You are suggesting we ignore the collaboration because of the resistance and the difficult conditions Draža faced. I am suggesting we include both and ignore nothing. The word, "collaboration", Fkp, is not "my" choice, but is the term used overwhelmingly by the sources for tehse activities and hence cannot be ignored on the basis of your own WP:OR estimates of propriety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So then, I oppose your position that some actions and events (collaboration) must be excluded due to other events (resistance and the difficult situation). Why would you oppose the inclusion of both? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the interpretation of the Tomasevich is a subject of debates, let's see how the scholars interpret him. W. A. Owings (Slavic Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 375-377) in his review on "THE CHETNIKS: WAR AND REVOLUTION IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1941-1945. By Jozo Tomiiasevich. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975, and on THE CHETNIK MOVEMENT AND THE YUGOSLAV RESISTANCE. By Matteo J. Milazzo. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, writes:

"Any treatment of the Chetlnik movement inevitably must focus on the question of collaboration. Both Tomasevich and Milazzo clear up any remaining doubt that "Chetnik" groups, purporting to be affiliated witlh the Mihailovic movement, engaged in close and prolonged collaboration with the Italian and German occupations, and in the end even with the Ustaslha. It is equally clear that Mihailovic and Tito agreed that in the long run it was the revolutioin, not the war, that wvas most portentious for Yugoslavia's future. As a result, politically expedient considerations caused even Tito to consider at least the possibility of Partisan collaboration with the Germansa revelation which, when first publicized by Roberts, created something of a furor in Yugoslavia. On the question of collaboration any "bad guy-good guy" dichotomy is simplistic"

In other words, it is clear that the partisans were the primary enemy for Michalovich (and, accordingly, the Chetniks were primary enemy for the partisans), so Mihailovich did contact Nedic and German authorities to get a help in his struggle with Tito (and Tito also didn't rule out a similar opportunity, although just in theory). In other words, we have to concede that some Mihalilovich's steps make post-war accusations in collabrationism partially justified, although the fact that Mihailovich conducted anti-German policy also cannot be ignored. In any event, since the dispute about Michalilovich's collaboration meets a criterion of "major controversy", it must be reflected in the lede, although I do think we mush avoid oversimplifications.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Response to direktor: I am just saying that having in mind all events trougout the war and what all sources say about everything, I find JJG´s lead as the one that most fairly portrays the events. I saw your last proposed version, and I still see you giving the impression that they were just another collaborationist movement, and we can´t simply ignore that the differences between Chetniks and other collaborators are huge. For instance, while collaborating forces:

• supported nazi ideology, Chetniks didn´t.
• while most collaborators had their own governaments (ideologically nazi or fascist), Chetniks were fighting to restore the Yugoslav monarchy that was waiting in London and workng with Allies.
• while collaborating movements were in alliance with Germans, Chetniks weren´t, and they were openly considered enemies troughout the war, with just the exeptions of peace-deals while fighting against Partisans. It is also useless to discuss weather M would have wanted a stronger deal, or not, because anyway Germans never accepted any long-term deals with him.
• while collaborating forces fought against Allies, Chetniks were not in war with any allied nation, and they were officially in war against Axis states, right the oposite of "collaborators".
• while collaborating forces worked along Germans in order to create a "new order", Chetniks had a completely different agenda, and even stated their aim was to expell foreign troops, refering to Axis ones, and "liberate" the country. By that, I supose they also include Partisans, but again, that doesn´t make them "collaborators".
• while collaborating forces leaders usually worked along Hitler and other Axis leaders, Mihailovic was head-hunted by them and never meat with any of them...
• basically, they didn´t agreed on any single point beside being both the enemies of the Partisans, and the main purpose of all the three sides was to get rid of the other two.

None of this goals and courses of action has anything to do with "collaboration ideology" and usual labeling. The word itself can possibly be used in the article, but it must be used with extreme caution and precition, cause otherwise we are using a terribly heavy word in a very wrong generalisation. PS: I answered to you direktor in rush, and there are possibly more points that could be added here in "differences" section, and I really don´t know which exact sources for this to present to you, since I supose all authors agree with this, or Chetnik "instrukcije" also confirm most of it. I answered to you so you can understand why I find wrong your proposed version. I hope we can archive a healthy discussion on this. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had this comment writen before I saw Paul´s response. The problem is that Tomasevic is the one describing collaboration as "prolonged and close" but such description seems not to be the one used by other authors, and some facts make it hardly be possible to be of that intensity. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Owings writes about Tomasevich and Milazzo, so the opinion of the former seems to be shared by at least another scholar (+ Owning himself). Therefore, this viewpoint should be reflected in the lede, as one of existing viewpoints.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal of indicating exactly which scolars claim what has already been discussed and accepted by most of us as a possible ideal solution, however direktor was the one who rejected it. That happend while he was still at the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp. That is simply untrue the mediation reached no consensus on anything, and while I haven't the slightest inkling of what you are talking about, I assume "most of us" probably means "you and your pals". In any case please o please do list the sources that disagree so that all sources can be reviewed, you should be able to access them easily if what you say is true. If you have none, please do not make such claims anymore. The mediation does not concern me in the least.

I oppose your position that some actions and events (collaboration) must be excluded due to other events (resistance and the difficult situation), which of course is the state of affairs in JJG's version that you support. Again: why would you oppose the inclusion of both?

@Paul. The "opinion" is also shared by Ramet (as was quoted frequently), Pavlowitch, and other scholars as well. The exact words used are "systematic", "extensive" and "enduring" collaboration. Its not one of the viewpoints, its the only (possible) viewpoint to be heard from any serious scholar. I have yet to see any source in contradiction (aside from quotes of the Chetniks' own propaganda), though I have heard about these phantom publications far too often. You will notice how rhetoric is used here to "counter" plain facts and references.

P.S. Paul, here you can read some of the peer reviews on Tomasevich (according to the AHA "the most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia"), as well as Tomasevich's detailed examination of Partisan contacts with the Axis. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, could you please stop using expressions like "pals", I mean, which "pals"? You had been the only one oposing for the citation inclusion at least twice, as I recall, the first one was still at beggining, when you expressed concern about Tomasevic´s citations loosing credibility as he is Yugoslav/Croatian historian, and because you considered that there was no reason for that. Then at the mediation, I beleave it was our mediator Sunray (not 100% sure), who proposed as solution to cite exactly who claims what, thus including all views with their authors, and everyone agreed, but you again refused by saying that no one contradicts Tomasevic.

The question is not about contradicting your sources, but about WP:UNDUE so we can correctly descibe and summarize all content. I really can´t see how you can find fair to descibe the movement equally (or even worste) that some real collaborating forces. PS: I don´t recal ever hearing Pavlovich saying something similar. Which statement of his were you refering? FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, just post the sources please. If there are none, as I am sure is the case, then please immediately stop wrongfully citing WP:UNDUE on a subject where a dozen scholars say one thing and none contradict them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What happend with Pavlovich source saying what you claim? Here, User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23, are some sources related to the issue and that partially contradict some statements you have been making. But, it is not finished yet. Anyway, do you have any proposal for the lead, or is it the last one you proposed? FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already read through all of those. These quotes simply describe Mihailović's resistance. They do not contradict collaboration. It seems I'll have to repeat again: the fact that Mihailović engaged in resistance does NOT mean he did not also engage in collaboration. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive, do you understad this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So then, keeping in mind all of the above, namely that 1) sources certainly do exist in great number that describe collaboration (using that same term), and 2) that acts of resistance do not somehow erase acts of collaboration, lets try and go at this again.

Do you have any real justification for not including both the resistance and the collaboration. The JJG version you propose ignores collaboration in the lead. You mentioned sources, but all they do (at best) is confirm resistance, that has no bearing on the issue of collaboration - and is not disputed anyway. Mind you, the sources quoted for collaboration also describe resistance (and probably much better and in gretaer detail than most of the sources you quoted).

This, then, seems to be the crucial question: as opposed to confirming the acts of resistance (which are not disputed), are there sources which contradict collaboration? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, could you please respond to the inquiry? Should you not respond, i.e. if no sources are posted, the only logical conclusion is that they do not really exist (as is my strong suspicion), and that your quoting of WP:UNDUE was quite inappropriate. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually nobody here (with the possible exception of FkpCascais on occasions and in relation to the Germans) is suggesting Mihailovic didn't collaborate. That is not actually what the problem is here. Neither does the new proposed article suggest they didn't collaborate. The problem here has been the black and white POV pushing on the point. That first diff DIREKTOR posts above to show this in fact shows what dreadful POV nonsense the earlier version was as well. Yet again DIREKTOR posts that FkpCascais insists there was no collaboration at all, demands FkpC produces sources to prove this and then copy-pastes his own list of quotes and reviews (with which everyone is now so familiar). Meanwhile, other editors are put off by the aggressive, ad hominem tone of it all. Personally I think it is inevitable that collaboration should be fairly represented in the lead - but such a discussion seems premature and doomed to failure until editors can start doing some serious work on the article. Some of the editors here have not had an opportunity to see the new proposed article arising from the mediation. (The JJG version has already been worked on during the mediation). What I would propose is that both DIREKTOR and FkpCascais stop reprising their age old argument.Other contributors contributions are lost in this. It is not necessary to always reply to every post. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Fainites, this dispute is at its core between Nuujin and myself on the one side, and Jean-Jacques Georges and FkpCascais on the other. Both FkpCascais and Jean-Jacques Georges are in fact suggesting that Draža Mihailović himself did not collaborate. Or rather, they support that position to all effects and purposes, demanding (from the start) that coverage of the collaboration be excluded from the lead. Your assumption however is quite logical considering the circumstances: who would imagine such an obvious fact is actually disputed? (The earlier version was indeed POV nonsense, it was years ago before anyone had the chance to do some serious research on this; my position has been softened in accordance with the sources, that of the opposing parties' has not been.)

Now, how would you propose I go on discussing with these fine folks about the best way to describe collaboration in the lead, when we cannot even get them to agree on the obvious necessity of including it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I propose you go on discussing with these fine folks? Politely and calmly. Personally I would have thought what needs to go in the lead will become more obvious as the article improves. It's a key issue of the whole Mihailovic story - but it's a key issue from a number of view points as to the extent/why's and wherefores/effects/mythology (both ways) and so on and so on. I don't get the impression FkpCascais is denying collaboration. Just that it needs to be placed in context and that it would be historically inaccurate to simply lump Mihailovic in with either regimes like Pavelic's who couldn't wait to set up an ultra-nazi state and start massacring "enemies" even before Yugoslavia was defeated, or quisling efforts like Nedic. Mihailovic always seems to me to be between several devils and several deep blue seas. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask bout the manner of discussion, I inquired as to how you propose I should have moved on to more sensible issues, such as how to describe this neutrally, while the very inclusion is still disputed. Context? Bloddy of course! It needs to be made perfectly clear these people are not the Ustaše or the Nedić government, that they did do some resistance (and I know where, when and how), that their "collaboration was not based on ideological affinity and was not without reservations either" (Tomasevich p.246). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I agree with most you said, but I am not sure if you are being correct by saying that I fail to produce sources. I am a bit confused about which exact sources does direktor ask for, and how can I present him sources about collaboration when the subject is aproached in a different way by other authors. Direktor somehow disregards those sources by saying that only sources that mention the word collaboration count. I don´t have sources that state that M did not collaborated, neither that is, neither was, my point at any time. However some authors does seem to present the subject in a different perspective, less acusational, and according to the general situation at that period.

With regard to the rest, I completely agree with you Fainites about everyting else you said, and I didn´t answered to direktor because I had nothing new to add by now, and by that I was also giving space for other participants to express themselfs as well. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - my remark about "failing to produce sources" related to demands that you produce sources to show that Mihailovic did not collaborate - which I do not understand to be your position - as you confirm above. I have noted that you have been reading sources and collecting quotes. DIREKTOR has now accepted Nujinns terms of discussion (apart from the lead) so hopefully now we can just get on with making some progress.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp. Since there are numerous sources which describe Draža's collaboration, naturally what you need are sources that actively deny Draža's collaboration (the problem is they do not exist of course). I do not believe you when you say you are confused about this. I most certainly DO NOT disregard sources on the basis of whether they use the word "collaboration", it is simply that your sources do not even talk about Draža's contacts with the enemy ("collaboration" whatever you want to call it), but about Draža's resistance - whih is a completely different, essentially undisputed subject. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, no problem, because you are right that I could have done, and do more, and I have been a bit "lazy" lately about it, however I do have a personal problem which enables me to make online purchases, so I´ll have to see with time how to organize myself. @DIREKTOR, I understand what you mean, but on the other side you disregarded the source I presented to you where a German commander described Chetnik approach to them, but you said it was Chetnik propaganda (?!)... FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

To maintain order on this page, the only refactoring should be by a moderator. I am still considering whether I want to be involved in that capacity, as are other mediators. Nuujinn has raised another concern with me that I consider significant: excessively long posts. This was first raised by Fainites on June 9 and some editors have refused to limit the length of their posts. Talk page guidelines set out a number of good practices, including: "Be concise". My other concern is the frequent ad hominem on the talk page. I no reason for remarks directed at the individual, rather than the content at issue. I will make a statement about behavioral expectations by the end of the day Monday.

Thank you Sunray, but "behavioral expectations" on Wikipedia are quite well outlined in WP:NPA and elsewhere. While imo we all strive to be concise and shall continue to do so, I do not think we need to have you impose any non-policy restrictions on the length of talkpage posts. And anyway the problem here is obviously not so much the length of individual posts as their large number. Refactoring other user's comments is, as we all know - contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I've yet to see any exceptions for moderators with regard to this (quite basic) rule outlined aynwhere either in WP:RPA, WP:TPO, or WP:M. I will be reporting any changes done to my posts. Quite the opposite, according to WP:TPO:

• "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

In general, there is really no point in starting yet another thread on the same subject. I think we've all pretty much said all we have to say on this. In my view, the proposed guidelines do nothing at all to address the real, quite serious problems of this debate (namely a near-complete lack of adherence to sources), and are generally a waste of time. Frankly, this new thread diverts attention from real discussion (and actual progress imho) that is being done. The danger now (quite endemic to the mediation) is that the discussion will once again shift from discussing the central issues of the dispute - to this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the continual disruption on this and other related pages, such behavior cannot be tolerated. The ArbCom decision concerning Balkans-related articles, WP:ARBMAC states:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums...

Editorial process

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes... [...]

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision...

If I agree to moderate this discussion, I will rely on ARBMAC as guidance. I will ask one or more uninvolved administrators to monitor the discussion and apply sanctions as necessary. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of ARBMAC and its findings, in fact I frequently quote it to participants in the Balkans articles. Please explain, however, which part therein is any different than the requirements of WP:NPA? Which part do you understand as allowing moderators to refactor any and all comments on the contributor?

Also, is it not required that a moderator have the consent of the discussion participants before "agreeing to moderate"? With all due respect Sunray, we've been at this for fifteen months under your guidance - to no avail. And if there are indeed others considering moderating, don't you think it might be time to "pass on the torch", as it were, and see whether a different approach might render more immediate results? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR - Sunray is not the only one concerned. This talkpage is not making progress. It is descending as others do so often into shouting, repetitive TLDR posts and ad hominem posts. ARBMAC exists because this is a fraught area. The particularly relevent point of the post above is The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. We are rapidly approaching that point.

I propose we accept Nujinns proposals and try to work to those. If there are any obvious problems the terms can be adjusted. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake what difference does it make whether posts are over or under 500 words?? Or whether later modifications of one's posts are in black or purple? That is obviously not why this discussion is bogged down, far from it. Rigorous standards of adherence to WP:NPA do not need a special "rule".. I'm not saying the discussion is getting any better, I'm saying this is obviously not the way to fix it.

*Sigh*... fine. I agree to the "terms", all except the one to discuss the lead last. Where the others are just an unhelpful nuisance, that one promises to actively delay solving this dispute even further. Now please gentlemen, take the bull by the horns and help us finsih this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much DIREKTOR. As for discussing the lead later rather than first - you can't force everyone to you know. You've set up a section and it is up to other editors whether they choose to contribute to it now or later.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's Rules of Engagement

1. An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.
2. More aggressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.
3. That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.
4. That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.
5. That editors working on the article restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or whatever other venue we wind up working in, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

The only one not agreed is; #That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize. However, editors can't be forced to discuss this first if they don't want to so I dare say discussion on the point will arise as and when enough editors think this appropriate. Can I suggest that each topic for discussion is clearly labelled as such in it's own section, once the new article is posted.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea, I second that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I beleave all groundrules that enforce the ARBMAC guidance for discussions are seriously necessary, and I will support them as I allways did. My only complain goes with the fact that users breaking them had been too much forgiven thus making the rules loose credibility. Anyway, ith regard with the lead discussion, I don´t mind leaving the thread open and ongoing, instead of postponing it, or closing it for now... I beleave Fainies sugestion, if I understood right, for making specific separate threads for each subject is perfect, and each of those threads can be discussed in its own rythm. FkpCascais (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to the guidelines I have proposed? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Nuujin.. sure :). All except the one on discussing the lead last. As long as the requirement that we discuss properly, that is fully in accordance with sources, remains the paramount "rule". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Now then, can we please agree that it is necessary to elaborate in the lead on the collaboration of Draža Mihailović? With context of course. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not here. This is not the right section. Also - we need to get the mediation article posted first.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec, ec...) Nuujinn, I do find a bit exagerated the limit of 3 posts/day on all related articles, because if we limit ourselfs to make short posts, then 3 of them would seem quite too short when discussions are actually ongoing. By limiting the posts to 3/day on subject, you are somehow making that people would use more words per post to better express themselfs. I rather think that a rule saying that no 4 successive posts betwen 2 same users are allowed, thus making a discussion to stop before hearing a 3th side opinion, but without slowing that much the rhytm of the debates... FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Fkp, but do you agree to the rest of them? And part of the problem is that the long posts are tiring. What I would like to get to is a point where people are doing more thinking and reading, and less talking, and considering their arguments at some length before posting. The hope is that if we can slow down discussions we'll have more light and less heat. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the much more positive tone that the discussion has taken. Thank you all. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all the rest of the points Nuujinn. The lenght of the posts I find o´right, and I beleave I had put it in use for some time now; I have been calling for a more strict policing on PA for some time now; I already agreed that we should discuss using sources, although I beleave this point is directed towards my general ideas that I want us to discuss in the thread that I opened back; I agree with refactoring, and I allways opened debates on talk pages and searched for consensus for every single proposal of mine for the draft; and I fully agree we use of this talk page for everything related, and not dispersing discussions on several pages.

I even agree with the idea behind the proposal of 3 posts/day, however, as you see, we have been having relatively short posts with kind of "normal" debate, so it would be sad to interromp such discussions just because we can´t add a 4th post... In those situations, better than limiting ourselfs, it would be better to limit to maximum 2 or 3 posts between 2 editors, before necessarily stoping to hear a 3th party voice... That would disencourage editors from repeating themselfs and will necessarily bring a 3th user view on the subject before continuing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea of the 500 words limit for each post with one exception. The limit refers to the users' arguments, and the quotes from reliable sources (with full references) should not be included in this limit. In my opinion, the discussion will be more fruitful if every participant will supplement every his short statement with an extended quote from some reliable source. The quote should be extended to demonstrate that the author's words have not been taken out of context. I saw too many unsupported claims on this talk page and too few sources, and I do not think that by shortening of the length of the posts the situation will be improved. Moreover, to make a discussion more concrete, I would propose to ignore any statement that has not been supported by appropriate quote and full reference (author, book/article, publisher/journal, year, volume, page): for instance, if someone believes that the source X should not be used in the article/lede, he is supposed to provide a quote from some highly reliable source that rejects the source X as inaccurate, fringe, biased or obsolete. I also suggest to create a list of the sources that all parties consider reliable and appropriate for the usage in the lede. With regard to other sources, in a case of any doubt I suggest to resolve the issue at WP:RSN, and, when the issue has been resolved, not to return to that again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Requiring to ignore unsourced claims is the most important rule we could possibly institute with regard to getting this discussion on track. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul's approach makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of posts

Reviewing the discussion above, I think it might wise to set a daily cap on number of words. That way participants wouldn't have to worry about the number of posts. However, it would encourage people to monitor their verbiage and be lean of expression. As a guide, Nuujinn's suggested criteria (previous section, above) peg out at about 265 words. So if we set a cap at 750 words/day, it might produce a more reasonable level of discourse. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That will slow down the discussion. Are people supposed to wait 'till midnight before saying something they want to say? This is getting silly. Opposed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets see how we go with Nujinns proposals, with the exception of quotes. If it doens't work - we can change it. We know what we are trying to avoid - repetitive, TLDR heated and personalised arguments. Can peopel also,if they have previously set out long lists of quotes, provide a link if possible rather than set it all out again?Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that we make a quotes subpage, and put the text of quotes there with an anchor of Author-year-page so we can link to them. That way we can all work through the same material, and we can exclude that material from other material easily. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could simply use collapsible boxes..? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could, but it seems that the same quotes get brought up regularly, so I'm trying to think of how to reference them. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How about establishing a sub-page for sources and quotes? In discussion, participants could refer to a source using the Harvard method, e.g., (Roberts, p. 151) or could provide a link to the quote on a sub-page. Sunray (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I created Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/ and put in a sample. Go to... --Nuujinn (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for discussion (last look)

Here are Nuujinn's proposed guidelines with edits and rewording (of # 2) for, a last look:

1. Participants will restrict themselves to 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, user talk pages, ANI, anywhere.
2. Personal attacks or ad hominem remarks will be removed and participants warned in accordance with WP:ARBMAC. Repeat infractions may result in a topic ban.
3. Content discussions will deal with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.
4. For ease of reference, participants will not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place.
5. Editors working on the article will restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or moderators' talk pages, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

If these guidelines are agreed on, we may begin the discussion. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

6. In a case of disagreement about appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain sources for the article, or about their reliability, the issue should be resolved at WP:RSN, and once the consensus is achieved on the RSN, it should not be contested in future, unless new evidences have been provided.

7. Any statement about some historical fact or event must be supplemented with the reference to some reliable source that that directly supports the material. It is a responsibility of the user who makes such a statement to provide needed links to the quote from the reliable source that supports this statement.

8. The factual statements that contains no references to RS are deemed just a personal opinions of the users who make them, and therefore have a zero weight and can be ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• All of the above looks good to me. I'll have limited net access starting tomorrow for a few days, but will check in when I'm back online. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Topics for discussion

Would participants be able to propose the topics that need to be discussed? Also, what should be tackled first... next, etc? Sunray (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is about nothing else than collaboration in the lead. Get an agreement on that and I promise you: the conflict disappears. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the lede serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects, this issue is inseparable from the question if the article devotes enough attention to the collaboration. It it does, we simply have to bring the lede into accordance with the article. If not, we need to come to a consensus about the article, and only after that can we speak about any modification of the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, this dispute is about the lead - so let's solve it. This issue has been discussed for so long we all pretty much have a good idea of what we think should be in the lede. Secondly, the article already has a an entire separate "Collaboration" section. And most importantly, we should not base a summary of this crucial issue on anything other than the sources themselves. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor is correct that the dispute was, in part, about the statement in the lead that M. was "a collaborator." Paul Siebert points out that, according to the Manual of Style, the lead must be in accordance with the article. Therefore, I suggest that we review the collaboration section in the article and agree on the appropriate way to deal with the issue of collaboration. The order, then would be:

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration section
3. review other sections, and
4. finalize the lead.

What are the sections, other than "Collaboration" that need to be reviewed? Are there any other topics for consideration? Sunray (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead definitely has to cover the "Greater Serbia" issue, since collaboration with Axis powers and war crimes against non-Serbs were just an instument in main Draža's plan, which was "Greater Serbia". In the article there is already a section ("Ethnic cleansing") about this and about Draža Mihajlović's infamous "Instrukcije" ("Instructions") of 1941. Here are some good sources for this:

• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. pp. 148–149. ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. p. 99. ISBN 0890967601, 9780890967607. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Per WP:LEAD this has to be in the lead as this was Draža's main objective. He collaborated with Axis powers and he was against Axis powers in order to achive his objective - ethnical cleansed "Greater Serbia". The collaboration with Axis powers was just one way in achieving this. --Kebeta (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta , can you put the text of the sources you are citing into Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/ so we can reference them there? But I fear this is exactly the kind of discussion we really cannot have until we come to agreement on specific sections in the draft. I do not believe that the sources support in general the notion that M.'s primary goal was ethnic cleansing, and I would rather we hash out what we want to say about ethnic cleansing and the Greater Serbia issue in an article section, in detail, before trying to weigh the relative importance of that issue against all of the others in the lede. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujin. On pp.145-146 of The Three Yugoslavias Sabrina P. Ramet states in the introduction to a description of the Chetnik movement:

Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...)

For the Chetniks the war provided an excellent opportunity to put their program into effect, and between autumn 1942 and spring 1943 the Chetniks carried out slaughters of Croatian [and Muslim] civilians in a wave of teror (...) Roatta [General Mario Roatta], commander of the second army, protested these "massive slaughters" and threatened to cut off Italian supplies and money if Chetnik depradations against noncombatant civilians did not end..

@Sunray. How about a slight change?

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration and ethnic cleansing sections
3. finalize collaboration and ethnic cleansing in the lead (concluding what are obviously the main issues)
4. review other (non-disputed) sections and their coverage in the lead

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Those quotes could go in the special quote farm you've set up. Other notable quotes covering a similar topic can be added to the relevent parts. Thus we will build an overview of what all the most notable sources say rather than trade rival quotes. If someone else thinks the quote is not long enough to provide full context - they can add the rest in a different colour. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the entire chapter.

Can we agree to go after the collaboration and ethnic cleansing issues first (first the sections than their representation in the lede)? After all we're here to solve the dispute first and foremost, and we can discuss the non-controversial parts of the article afterwards (assuming that is at all necessary). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that is the best approach, as it puts us in to the thick of the most contentious discussions. We've tried that many times in the past, and it doesn't seem to get us very far. In particular, I think if we try to deal with collaboration and ethnic cleansing issues simultaneously, we'll fall into old habits very quickly. It also seems to me that there are some clear phases to all of this. Perhaps we could approach some of the more contentious issues that way. For example, we could focus on the issues of collaboration during the phrase from the fall of 1941 after M. fails in the attack against the Partisans, until he lands in Montenegro. Also, it would be very helpful, I think, if we used the quotations subpage for quotes, so as to ease future reference. The color coding idea for additions is also a good idea. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Going ito the thick of the dispute, its a good thing.

"Going into the thick of the most contentious issues" is exactly the point of dispute resolution . OMG Nuujin, are you serious? We just spent more than a week "discussing how to discuss", and now you want to start talking about meaningless detailes peripheral to this dispute. But you're right in one thing: the best way to avoid any conflict is to simply avoid the main issues in perpetuity, for years on end(!) - that way we're 100% sure we won't "fall into our old habbits". Indeed, maybe we can talk about Mihailović's grandma for the next year as well?

I am NOT here to discuss the entire article. I am here to solve the contentious issues. Once those are done, the article's other NON-DISPUTED sections can be edited and discussed however much is necessary and with a lot less problems - since there will be no more disputes in this article! This is a simple issue! Ironically, it seems we really are "falling into the old habits" - discussing and editing utter irrelevant nonsense in the hopes that the main issue will somehow solve itself in the process. Absurd.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you can't force everybody else to agree with you. Nobody else agrees that "collaboration in the lead" is the sole issue as you earlier declared above. Now we've got over the lead point, it doesn't look like everyone agrees that the single issues you see as the only or most important issues are that simple. Nujinns approach is perfectly sensible. This constant arguing is very disruptive. Lets just get on and do some work. Hopefully as we progress, things will fall naturally into place.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether people agree with me or not is non-indicative as to the validity of my argument. Fainites, I've been here. We've tried this before. Things have not, and will not "fall naturally into place", whatever the heck that means. Look around. The idea sounds good but does not make sense at all. If, just for example, FkpCascais wants to exclude collaboration from the lede, and I want to include it, how will talking about NON-DISPUTED sections help us solve this dispute? Pray tell, what exactly is the process that is understood by "falling into place"?

How does one solve a dispute by not discussing the dispute? That is exactly the kind of "logic" that makes for 15-month mediations that do not solve anything - because they avoid discussing it.

Now I grant that it isn't just the lead that is disputed, but collaboration itself and its coverage in the main text as well. I grant that it is perhaps necessary to finish up the discussion on the collaboration section before working on its coverage in the lead, but to discuss matters that are not disputed at all?? Why? Why again? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The main reason the mediation has lasted as long as it has relates to the inability of participants to conform to WP behavioral policies. It has taken this long to get to a climate where editors can begin to contemplate editing collaboratively. The fundamental policy that editorial decisions are made by consensus is pretty hard to achieve when there are such extreme divergences. However, if editors focus on verifiability, rather than their own personal "truth," there is a chance they will succeed. We must all bear in mind that the best WP articles are those that present divergent viewpoints fairly and eloquently. Sunray (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect etiquette is secondary and generally irrelevant to the progress of dispute resolution. Unless personal squabbles become the actual focus of the discussion, which has happened very rarely (if ever), an exchange will essentially remain as effective towards debating the issue as any. The foundational error in judgement is laid bare here very nicely: the idea that the way to solve the dispute is for users to "become friends" and agree. Hence, if participants consistently refuse to hold hands and take long walks on the beach, Sunray is unable to solve any such dispute - it will simply go on in perpetuity (which has in fact happened).

This was the foundational error behind the nonsensical idea that by writing article text on non-controversial subjects, users that hate each-others' guts will become friends, kiss and make-up, and then they'll just magically(!) "agree" on solving the conflict somehow.

The way to solve this is to 1) see what the sources say, and 2) make sure than the sources are taken into account. That has NOT happened. Not a single iota of progress was made possible by Sunray enforcing verifiability over personal "Truth". Quite the contrary, instead of comparing "Statement A" and "Statement B" against the sources and putting forward the best course of action towards reconciling them, all Sunray ever saw was "disagreement". And how do we solve the "disagreement"? We all "hold hands" and write a HUGE article draft for a year that solves not a single solitary point of the dispute. Not surprisingly, people simply started to leave the useless non-dispute-related activities until there was no activity there (apart from Nuujin, sometimes). I'm terribly sorry, but this is not good mediation.

And here we are. Now the blame is placed squarely on the poor participants that wasted so much time and effort in a poorly thought-out and mismanaged mediation. I believe I said quite a while ago that this is how the failure would be represented in the end by our venerable mediator: "the squabbling Balkanites were just too impolite, they wouldn't make friends". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor: I am concerned by this response of yours. Leaving aside the incivility of beginning with the word "nonsense" for the moment, I will briefly address the rest of your remarks. WP policies nowhere require that editors "become friends" or "hold hands." As to blame, there is no blame. Only the need to assume responsibility for one's actions. It is time to be very clear about this. It is possible to finally begin to achieve something here. However, it will take a more concerted effort at listening and understanding. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Sunray, I'm sorry but it seems to me that the sentence "the main reason the mediation has lasted as long as it has relates to the inability of participants to conform to WP behavioral policies" quite unambiguously assigns blame, call it what you will. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am also entitled to strongly disagree. I am well aware that policies do not require users to get along swimmingly in order to solve a dispute - that is exactly my point, part of it anyway. (I'll remove the "nonsense" bit.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But to get back on-subject once more. Nuujin, Fainites, would you be so kind as to explain how exactly you feel discussing non-controversial undisputed sections of the article will help towards solving the dispute? What exactly do you mean when you say that "things will fall into place"? What does that mean?

To be clear, I propose we handle the collaboration and ethnic cleansing to begin with, first the sections, then the lede paragraphs. Why? Because the rest of the article is not in dispute. That makes me the the crazy one, apparently. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, glad to give my opinion, although doing so will require that I comment on user actions. I will try to keep that to a minimum, and let me say, this is a personal opinion, and nothing more. DIREKTOR, you have been hammering on the issues of sources for well over a year now, and last week you went through a discussion remarkably similar to ones that were occurring months ago. I see no progress in this approach. Sources must be interpreted, and people with different opinions and points of view differ in how they interprete and weigh sources. In order to reach a consensus, we must understand one another's position, even if we disagree. We must show and indeed have some measure of respect for one another, even if we completely disagree (note that I am saying "understand" and "respect", not "like"). Etiquette is not "secondary and generally irrelevant to the progress of dispute resolution" if there is no external authority to appeal to, and we have none. WP's mediation is not binding, and indeed, editors can and do walk away, sometimes to come back later, and in this case, pretty much everyone has done that. DIREKTOR, you have been very critical of the mediation process, but I have to ask you to consider whether at any time during the entire process if you entered into the mediation process whole heartedly. I don't know the answer to that question, only you can answer it, but if you have not yet done so, I ask that you do so now.

DIREKTOR, you have been arguing that all we need to do is look at the sources. I spent a lot of time, over ten years, studying literary theory and the philosophy of language, and I can tell you that all interpretation is done within a framework, and if you want to convince someone of something they do not believe, you have to do it by appealing to their framework and not yours. It is not that you have to be friends with anyone, like them, love them, hold their hands (phrases which are rather patronizing to be blunt), but that we need to learn how to discuss issues rather than trying to blugeon one another with our interpretation of the facts. We have demonstrated ad naseum that we are not able to move forward in regard to the more contentious issues, and thus my suggestion that we try it out on a less contentious area. If that is as simple as you seem to suggest, it will go quickly. If not, the process is more likely to have some measure of success we can build on than the course we have been following.

Finally, if the draft is decent and agreeable in any measure, I would say that that is because it is a melding of your work, JJG's, and "swift" (I can't type his handle and dialup is too slow to go hunting). If we can build on that effort to finalize the draft into a decent article, it will put us in a position to work out the lede. It's not that I've got all that much experience, but people seem to get really wound up about the ledes, and try to put too much into what should be a light summation of key points. We don't have a list of key points, yet, at least not one we agree on.

But that's too much to say, really, it's raining here now, and I think I'll fix a beverage and go sit on the porch and watch the rain hit the lake. Hope yahl have a nice day, --Nuujinn (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujin, the idea that we should literally avoid the issue in order to solve it is incredibly and paradoxically absurd. And that should be obvious to any sobre, healthy-thinking individual that reads such a proposal. Particularly, after the previous miserable and collosal failure of such an approach. The draft is done, Nuujin - pray solve the dispute with its magic powers of "dispute-avoidance". The proposal that practicing to work with each-other on undisputed issues will somehow make the cold hard differences in position disappear (amidst flowery special effects) - is not a viable or even remotely logical idea.

Yes, we've been discussing the issues for a long time with no success. So now when you see the debate restarted ("falling into old habbits"), you immediately assume that it is going to fail. The problem you face there is that there is no way to solve a dispute without debating it. As opposed to your idea of literally avoiding the issue to get to know each-other, I propose we actually start building WP:CONSENSUS this time on the basis of sources and WP:VERIFIABILITY, not on the basis of whether some random biased layman is "convinced" or not, and that we finally deal with the WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING that is disrupting this process by doggedly holding a clearly and obviously biased view in spite of ALL sources to the contrary. That is NOT "falling into old habits", since it never ever happened in this dispute.

I present to you an example from the Yugoslav Front article: #1 a sourced edit is made [9], #2 it is removed with no basis [10], #3 and the user is sanctioned [11], #4 the text remains in the article. That is this dispute in a nutshell, handled correctly. What we have here is a nonsense Balkans nationalist dispute blown out of all proportion: what business do we have "discussing" something with someone that has no sources to his position? What basis is there to blatantly ignore WP:V and remove sourced text from the article? The fact that some random internet guy is "not convinced"?

That is where you make the mistake, Nuujin: we should not care if he or you or I are "convinced", if the sources agree - there is no dispute. And a good mediator would have realized that and solved this a long time ago.

In short, the way to solve this dispute is not to stop discussing it, but to discuss it in a different way, this time in accordance with WP:V. That, I emphasize again, has never happened yet here. And now if you'll excuse me, there isn't a cloud in the sky, and I'm off to to take a dip in the Mediterranean Sea. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody above used the word "bludgeon". A very good word I thought. I am going to repeat myself ( or make myself clear) for the last time on this point. a) nobody is trying to enforce an unrealistic version of politeness or friendliness here. However, for civilised discourse to occur there must be at least a recognition from participants that genuine, good faith disagreements on interpretation and weight of sources exist (and indeed the framework as so ably described by Nujinn) and need to be discussed. I do not as yet see that here from you DIREKTOR. b) this is NOT repeat NOT just about you and FkpCascais arguing about whether or not collaboration should go in the lead, or indeed any of FkpCascais' other earlier unsourced suggestions. Your attempts to promote this view for months on end are looking increasingly thin. c) most of the disruption, incivility, TLDR and opposition to sensible discussion on this page comes from you. You cannot bludgeon everyone into doing everything your way by shouting, insulting the mediator and anyone else who disagrees with you. I suggest you take your dip in the mediterranean until you are thoroughly cool and try to contemplate the possibility that you may in fact not always be Absolutely Right About Absolutely Everything. ^TM Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

a) You're missing the point, I'm not talking about civility - I'm opposing the idea that working on non-disputed sections will do anything to solve the disputed ones. We don't have opposing views because we disagree, we disagree because we have opposing views. The idea that we now need to go to "Discussion School" (quote "learn how to discuss issues") for yet another month is pure empty phrases and nonsense. There simply isn't a realistic prospect of people "learning" anything at all, and even if we all graduated with flying colors we would still not come one step closer to reconciling opposing positions.

b) This dispute is about collaboration (and to a lesser extent the ethnic cleansing), in the lead and in the article. That's a fact. If you disagree, please show us a single non-collaboration-related disagreement. But for the third time, I am NOT suggesting we look only at the lead.

c) I am not angry because I want to be "right" all the time, that's just your fixed perception of myself - I am just bloody sick and tired of the stalling. Don't you get it? All the shouting and incivility above is me just trying to start discussing the damn issue. But "discussing the damn issue" is now termed "falling into old habits". So yes, I am trying to "disrupt" your not discussing the issue.

I even agreed to the silly rules just to start the discussion, and now the proposal is out that we once again start talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the dispute, which (until you can show us otherwise) most certainly is about collaboration in this article.

Do you seriously wish to start talking now about the "Early Life" section now, instead of the actual disputed edits, which are to be discussed last? If so, how do you justify that? That was my question. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake... You're right about one thing: if you good people want to start talking about the non-disputed stuff for another month or so my foaming at the mouth and desperate pleading certainly won't stop you. In the best case scenario the discussion will peter-out, people will leave, and the whole thing will proceed at less than a snail's pace, as per the mediation experience (until you reach WWII last!). In the worst case scenario the central disagreement will manifest itself in a thousand tiny ones as the positions of both sides remain unchanged (as opposed to reconciled before moving to the rest of the article!). In any case, since this discussion as well has been hijacked by fanciful "plans" and useless stalling, I'll be back when you gentlemen start talking about the dispute (if ever). Something tells me several months from now I'll be quoting this post. Have fun philosophizing, Nuujin. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(As an aside, it is "Nuujinn"). DIREKTOR, as for what you are proposing to do, I would point out that one could argue that that is precisely what you did during the mediation, as you really did not participate on the mediation pages. You might consider the effect of what I personally can only characterize as the dogged pursuit of your own aims has in terms of your overall effectiveness. In regard to that assertion that you "...even agreed to the silly rules just to start the discussion", yes, in word you did, but I cannot help but remark that immediately thereafter you tried to alter those rules to which you had just agreed in what might be taken by some, certainly myself, as an attempt to control discussion to suit your own wishes. I can see no substantial or real effort on your part to move forward under the guidelines to which you agreed. You will, of course, do whatever you wish to. I wish you the best of luck and will await your return as I think you have a good deal to offer, but I am troubled by what I see as an apparent refusal to consider the viewpoints of others and the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion to try to resolve the log jam we have visited so many times before. And that's all I wish to say about your conduct in this particular venue at this time, as we should be working toward improving the draft. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In the mediation, Nuujinn, I probably posted more sources on the question than the rest of the participants put together. It was only when I saw that no amount of sources has even the slightest effect on the course of the discussion, that I realized something was terribly wrong there. As for your draft, from the start I opposed it as a strategy that will improve the article, but will do absolutely nothing to solve the mediated dispute (i.e. stabilize the article). And I've quite obviously been proven right - should you post it now it would not solve a damn thing, and only managed to cost us half a year. I'm glad I had the foresight not to waste my efforts on Wikipedia in such a fruitless endeavor.

Nuujinn, I assume you can now resume the article improvements in peace. Its good editing to be sure, and has managed to derail and sidetrack the resolution of this issue twice. I won't be bothering you in your slow labours towards improving the article, but sooner or later the contested issue will inevitably come up again. At that point people will return, and you will simply say once more that we are "falling into old habits".

Your participation here is the perfect example of how incivility does not really matter that much. I may be loud and rude and abrasive, but with your perfect civility you've managed to derail this discussion completely off-topic far more effectively than any curseword - and twice. I'll be going now, since I came here to discuss the dispute. Should Nuujinn take pity on us and let us try and solve the dispute, I'll be back. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. You're gone. Don't forget though when you come back that you already signed up to the rules. All the best.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a man of my word. Though as I said, if we're trying to solve the dispute now as opposed to attending the "School of Discussion", I might not be all that gone (much to the dismay of everyone involved I'm sure :)). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The mediation process "is a component of the Wikipedia process content-dispute resolution process." Therefore, the purpose of this mediation is to come into agreement about some concrete points. As far as I understand, the only controversial topics are the Mihailovich's collaboration and ethnic cleansing. Do I understand the issue correct, or there are other aspects of his biography the users are disagree about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. However, the article as a whole was deemed not to meet WP:NPOV. Participants agreed to re-write it. That has been done. The current project is to finalize the question of collaboration and related issues and secure broader input and support (beyond just mediation participants) for the re-written article. Sunray (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Paul. Yes, the article as a whole was deemed POV because of the two controversial topics. And the only possible places where the controversial topics could be raised were the Collaboration section, the WWII section, and the lede. The draft was essentially written-up to improve the article as a whole. Its ready right now, but posting it will not bring us one step closer to resolving the main issue (which was my complaint from the start). In fact, it was specifically required by the mediator that we avoid any contentious issues while writing the draft. Now you're getting an idea about why the mediation lasted for 15 months with no resolution. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's more to the POV issues than those two major areas, and I expect we'll come to discuss those in due time. The draft is better than what we have in main space now, but it's really not up to snuff, there's a lot left to be done. But we're not going to finish WP today. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just post it.

I must have said this two dozen times by now: the draft is good editing, and it will improve the article. It is completely useless with regard to resolving the dispute - simply because it ignores it. And the point of dispute mediation, so far as I know, - is to resolve disputes.

The draft wil never be "up to snuff" Nuujinn, as you know, no article is ever finished on Wikipedia. After you post it within a year we can expect it will be modified beyond recognition anyway. Just post it..

What other conflicts do you suppose we might encounter? Can you post an example? But it does not matter either way, we will most certainly resolve any minor spats (whether there are any or no) a lot easier once the HUGE one-and-a-half year Conflict is resolved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions

Herewith Sunray's earlier suggestions for progress:

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration section
3. review other sections, and
4. finalize the lead.

It was also suggested that thwe issue of "ethnic cleansing" be tackled after collaboration before moving on. Here's the link to the quotes page so you don't have to hunt for it above - Talk:Draža Mihailović/quotations/. Please put separate issues/topics in separate, labelled sections. Cheers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I hope its clear to everyone that this is not what Nuujin proposed, i.e. covering the contentious issues last for the sake of "learning how to discuss". This way we essentially start work on the dispute immediately, and while I do hope it will not be necessary to review the other sections to any great length, any plan that involves starting discussion on the collaboration now is fine with little ole me. That much I believe I made clear above. As long as we do not repeat the mediation's mistake of proposing to discuss the actual dispute last of all.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Back so soon? :) Sunray (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. (;

DIREKTOR, I'm no more in charge of these discussion than you are, and I was very clear that what I was saying was just my personal opinion. What I feel most strongly about is that we should delay handling the lede sections until we get the rest sorted out. I do think working on less contentious sections would be better than diving into the issues of collaboration, but if the consensus is otherwise, it's not a problem for me, and I'll stick around until we're done, regardless. And again, it's Nuujinn, and I ask that you get it right from here on out. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read it DIREKTOR you will see it says "this is what Sunray proposed". And indeed he did. I copy pasted it! I then summarised the proposed addition. I was trying to restart a discussion so we could do some work without the usual constant TLDR rants about what we should be talking about. Looking below and above - an obviously misplaced hope.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

People, this was my proposal:

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration and ethnic cleansing sections
3. finalize collaboration and ethnic cleansing in the lead (concluding what are obviously the main issues)
4. review other (non-disputed) sections and their coverage in the lead

And this is what we're apparently going to do, in essence:

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration and ethnic cleansing sections
3. review other (non-disputed) sections and their coverage in the lead
4. finalize collaboration and ethnic cleansing in the lead (concluding what are obviously the main issues)

Why would I leave? I only opposed the idea that we should discuss the dispute last, and I think that is 100% clear above. Also I think the impression that such was the consensus was inescapable (though it seems it was simply a case of opposing for the sake of opposition).
Weird. Nuujinn: "We should discuss the issues last". DIREKTOR: "We discuss the issues first." Fainites: "DIREKTOR you're wrong stop bludgeoning - we should discuss the issues first". :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

May I ask you all: does anybody object against ##1,2? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Well I don't mind posting the draft (as soon as possible!! :)), we really need to get rid of the nonsense in the article. The one I object to is #3. What is your reasoning, Paul? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive part of this page?

Does anyone object to archiving all but the most recent discussions? I realize this is a bit unorthodox, but the load time on this page is horrible. I'm happy to do it section by section to make navigation easier if no one objects. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine. It has indeed become unwieldy. The "Terms of engagement" should move to the top of the page. Sunray (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: There is discussion on the talk page for the period from 25 June to 8 July that will remain there for now for ease of reference to the topics of "Collaboration" and "War Crimes" which are still under discussion. Sunray (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/#Pavlowitch.2C_Stevan_K._Hitler.27s_new_disorder:_the_Second_World_War_in_Yugoslavia Pavlowitch sheds some light on this, pp. 79-80, referring to Karchmar's work, which suggests that Djurišić forged the instructions, believing the M. might be dead, and wanting to have M. authority. I've requested Karchmar's work through interlibrary loan, should have it early next week. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains it. Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. I'm not at home right now, but when I get back I'll see about his peer reviews myself. The whole forgery idea looked like a unsupported conspiracy theory from the start. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if Pavlowitch was naive about his sources given the circumstances.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Pavlowitch is also a Serb emigre :), though i do not mean to imply any serious bias on his part. Be that as it may, I can assure you, Lucien Karchmar has a very bad reputation in Bosnia. At the very least, he is most certainly famous for being a "pro-Serbian" source, and giving the Chetniks the benefit of the doubt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Karchmar's work is criticized in parts of the Balkans, and I have no doubt it is also equally praised in other parts of the Balkans. Radical polarization seems part of the territory there. Karchmar is pretty widely cited, thus far I have found no academic sources in English that are critical of the work in terms of historical accuracy (the only criticisms I've found thus far is that Karchmar tends to be long winded). In particular, I would point out that Marko Attila Hoare, reviewing Partisans et Tchetniks en Yougoslavie durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale: Idéologie et mythogenèse by Antoine Sidoti in the Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 429-430, in criticism of that work says "Most puzzling of all, the classic works on the Chetnik movement by English-language historians Jozo Tomasevich, Matteo J. Milazzo, and Lucien Karchmar do not appear in the bibliography and are not cited in the text, not to mention many equally important sources published in Serbo-Croatian." If Hoare, who is extremely critical of attempts to rehabilitate Milhailovic's reputation accepts Karchmar as a classic work, that's indication that Karchmar is not discredited in the general historical academic community, nor so biased as to be problematic for our use here. There is also this, and I cannot help but point out that Stanford is not exactly a backwater institution. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I propose we find work which is either praised or ignored or criticized equally in the Balkans. Tomasevich, for example, is criticized by nationalists from both the Croatian and Serbian "side". Far be it from me to imply Balkans public opinion should be relevant here, but I don't think a source from a Serbian emigre that is praised by Serbian nationalists and criticized by all other factions is quite up to par. To be more specific, Karchmar is famous for hatching various "theories" that absolve Chetniks, along the lines of "well this might've happened, who's to say it didn't?". What I mean is, unless his personal opinion is supported by direct primary evidence (like Tomasevich for example), we should not list it without attribution - and it should certainly NOT be cause for ignoring Mihailović's instructions in our draft in any way.

Does anyone have Karchmar, can we have his relevant quote, the source of the conspiracy theory? I would propose, therefore, that unless his falsification claim is supported by direct evidence, as opposed to merely his own opinion and conjecture, that we take into account his controversial nature in the Balkans and include his claim as an attributed quote, otherwise proceeding as planned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the review, Nuujinn, one finds very good examples of what I'm talking about. The review states outright that "Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt". The theory mentioned therein for example, originating with Karchmar, that the SOE was full of evil "Stalinist spies", was one of his "ideas" that historians in Britain took the time to thoroughly debunk. Karchmar generally lays the blame squarely on the British (while ignoring British records), and is an originator of the "western betrayal" rhetoric in Serbian radical circles. We must acknowledge that Karchmar's PhD certainly harbors some degree of bias. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, we really can't start deciding whther secondary sources opinions are based on direct primary evidence or not. Sure they look at it in the first place but they don't quote or include it all. They couldn't. That's why we use reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. We can only look at reviews or specific mentions in other published works. Besides which, what source says the theory that SOE was full of Stalinist spies originated with Karchmar? This was a well known issue in Britain during and after the war - not just in SOE. It's highly unlikely it originated with an American work published in the 70s. What about Martin (1946) or Lees who although he was writing in the 80s used a host of earlier publications of memoirs of the operatives. What the review says about Karchmar is "Although he may be exaggerating the "left wing" character of the S.O.E., he is correct in suggesting that the S.O.E. had a hand in persuading the more conservative staid Foreign Office policy-makers to abandon Mihailovic". Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, we do not exclude reliable sources, especially academic ones (which are vetted, as is the case with dissertations and scholarly publications) because we think they are biased. Hoare has a bias, but we accept him as reliable because of his credentials, not because we agree with him. And we certainly do not base decisions of reliability of academic sources on public opinion. Fainites is correct that sources indicate there were conflicts within the SOE and between the SOE and the Foreign Service between leftists and rightists. It appears that it will be a while before we get to it, but there's a similar tension between the US and British governments as the former did not trust Tito (as a communist) whereas the British did. So I think what we do is document the dispute, and say that some academics hold that the document is real, and others that it is a forgery. If you want to attribute by name, that's fine, but we should do it bilaterally. In terms of this review, I cannot help but note that you have pulled part of a sentence, out of context, to support your POV, and I think you have misrepresented the source by doing that: "Heaping all the blame on Mihailovic, however, may be too harsh a judgment. Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt, and his exhaustive study yields a great deal of material that helps us understand the nature of the problems faced by Mihailovic and his Cetniks." That's praise for Karchmar, not criticism of bias. Finally, Karchmar's opinion is based in research in the topic, so it is a very well informed opinion, as are the opinions of Roberts, Tomasevich, Hoare, Milazzo, and professional historians. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, did I say we should "disregard" or "exclude" Karchmar? If you look at my proposal you'll note I support the inclusion of the possibility that the Instructions were falsified. I am simply pointing out that "we must acknowledge that Karchmar's PhD certainly harbors some degree of bias", and treat it accordingly. I constantly get the feeling of an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere. The quote Nuujinn, was not taken out of context and it retains its meaning - being praised for providing a pro-Mihailović point of view (at a time when it was lacking), does not make it any less a pro-Mihailović POV. In light of this, I do not support bilateral attribution: Tomasevich is not described as giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

To sum-up, taking into account that the Karchmar PhD "gives Mihailović the benefit of the doubt" (for which he is quite famous btw), and since his falsification claim is speculative ("who's to say this didn't happen?"), I do not support bilateral attribution. In other words, the burden of evidence is on Karchmar, not Tomasevich, and given that the former's positive assertions consitute speculation and personal opinion (unsupported however well-informed), it seems quite biased indeed to grant them equal treatment where that is unwarranted.

• Concerning the SOE. Karchmar naturally did not invent the idea of SOE communist infiltration, but he did invent the idea that his own abstract "communist spies" in the SOE were behind Churchill's support for the Partisans - as it happened it was the ULTRA intercepts (the old review was published before the idea was debunked). That is to say, there were communist spies in the SOE, and the SOE did have a (small) hand in the shift of support, but it is speculative conjecture that these communist spies in the SOE brought about the shift of support (were Randolph Churchill and Sir Fitzroy MacLean communist spies?). In addition Karchmar places the blame entirely on these spies and the SOE, while we now know that the SOE was not instrumental to the shift in support. That's my point.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Professional historians are entitled to express opinions. That's the whole point of experts. They are the ones who can give opinions - unlike us who are mere compilers of secondary sources. Your version of Karchmar is not in accordance with the review in any event which says Although he may be exaggerating the "left wing" character of the S.O.E., he is correct in suggesting that the S.O.E. had a hand in persuading the more conservative staid Foreign Office policy-makers to abandon Mihailovic. It then makes it plain that the evidence of contacts with the Axis was damning and the ultimate decision rested with the FO policy makers and Churchill. As for the idea that Karchmar invented the theory, what about George Orwell? If you have access to Karchmar, lets have a look at what he actually says. Also, you say Karchmar is "famous" for giving Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt. Can we have sources for this please. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, and we aren't in a position to decide whether Karchmar or Tomasevich is correct about the document, and thus I believe our only recourse is to attribute the statements and document the controversy. Also, DIREKTOR, if you're going to say things like "the old review was published before the idea was debunked", you should point to the source upon which that assertion relies. I believe that you are mischaracterizing the review, but perhaps you're not familiar with the idiomatic usage--"Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt" doesn't equate to a "pro-Mihailović POV" as you characterize it. And finally, I have to ask, have you read Karchmar? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fellas: since we agree its an opinion, it should be attributed. That is all. This is not my position on Karchmar specifically, but on the representation of professional opinions in general on Wiki.

While "teaching the controversy" might be a popular approach in the States nowadays, in science it is complete nonsense to equate a scientist making an unsupported positive claim (a statement of opinion), with all others who do not. Does Karchmar state an opinion? Very well, lets post it and attribute it - and the story should end there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be brief, and I apologize for being terse, as it may come across as a bit harsh, but we'll falling into the walls of text problem (again).

1. History isn't science. And Karchmar's direct statement regarding the instructions is Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/#Pavlowitch.2C_Stevan_K._Hitler.27s_new_disorder:_the_Second_World_War_in_Yugoslavia endorsed by Pavlowitch in note 25 on page 80. It is not uncommon for a later historian to build upon the work of others or review old or newly uncovered evidence and to articulate a new view of an old matter. Not having read Karchmar, I don't know what the situation is yet.
2. That Karchmar takes one view and Tomasevich another is not a matter of simple opinion, both are professional historians--in such case we do attribute the difference to the sources in question. We aren't in a position to evaluate the fine points of either scholar's work. And we're not teaching the controversy, we documenting a disagreement between sources, which is the WP way to handle such matters. Karchmar, as I have shown with the review of his work and quotes from both Pavlowitch and Hoare, is a respected authority in this area. If Karchmar is an apologist for M (and not having read his work, I cannot possibly have an opinion on that issue), that Hoare endorses Karchmar's work is particularly compelling, given Hoare's views of M.
3. You're making lots of statements, but you're not providing references to sources that directly support your claims, and until you do, I, for one, am not putting any weight at all on those assertions per rule number 8.
4. I asked you a direct question, have you read Karchmar? And if you haven't, on what exactly are you basing your judgments? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be even more concise. Whether history is a "science" per se is the subject of some debate, Nuujinn, but the point is that historiography (and Wikipedia) function in accordance with scientific principles. Indeed, more adherence thereof would certainly help this discussion along.

Nuujinn, a professional opinion should be attributed to its author. With the instructions above, that will document the indiscrepancy in the sources quite sufficiently indeed. It is biased and unnecessary to list all the scholars who do not mention the claim at all, due to the fact that this equates their position to that of a scholar making a positive statement of personal opinion. And, in spite of the imo excessive "egalitarianism" noticable in your train of thought, the two positions are far, far from equal. Science, just like Wikipedia, is not a democracy, and two "votes" do not carry equal weight.

Once again: my position here is that a professional opinion should be attributed to its author. Nothing more. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But as I understand it Direktor, you do not state that in relation to Tomasevic? This is all nonsense. Karchmar's opinion is no more or less an opinion that any other professional historians opinion. Our decision as to which sources we consider the best or preferable or whatever does not rely on some mythical ability of a bunch of editors to analyse the primary sources comprising the foundation of a decades long career as a professional historian. You have misunderstood Nuujinn's point and are personalising the argument by implying he is proposing a "teach the controversy" approach (in which an unsupported claim is equated with supported ones), an insult in anyone's book surely? And where does he suggest that we "list all the scholars who do not mention the claim at all" as you claim? Please be a littlemore carefulin reading others posts before replying so that this discussion does not descend into the usual bad-tempered TLDR. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But Fainites, I have the exact same position with regard to Tomasevich. The thing is, Tomasevich is an incredibly thorough scholar and his statements very rarely, if ever, go without direct support in primary sources (e.g. "Mihailović ordered Đujić to cooperate with the Germans, we know that because we have the transcript of the radio transmission where he says that himself", etc.).

What I am doing here, Fainites, is pointing out the difference between a theory and a fact. Tomasevich is a good example of a secondary source that is little more than a glossary of raw facts on the period, at times, he expresses an "opinion" ("theory") based on these facts. The same is true with Karchmar. My position here is that, taking into consideration the obscure and extremely controversial nature of the subject matter, opinions should be attributed when they are in question with other sources.

This is a general proposal, and certainly not exclusive to Karchmar, it only seems to have come-up for the first time with him. Though he is perhaps a good example because of his doing his best to grant one party in a controversial issue the benefit of the doubt (to quote the review). Imho, his will grant our discussion (and version of the text) an increased measure of neutrality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the sea change in your opinion, from the above I take that A). you have no objections to use of Karchmar and B). you have no objection to attributing Tomasevich's take on the instructions to Tomasevich and Karchmar's to Karchmar. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in a universe where positive assertions and negative ones have the same validity, you would be right. In our universe, someone making a claim, or proposing a theory, has to prove and stand behind it, not the one rejecting it. The burden of evidence is on him, not on anyone and everyone who does not support him - thats the whole point of attribution. Its Karchmar's theory, he has to be attributed, all those who ignore/reject him do not need to be - their positions are NOT equal as they are not proposing anything. That is how science, and the world in general, work. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Oh for goodness sake why are we even discussing this? If Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt, we attribute it to him as his theory and we move on! Its basic logic and neutrality. I can't fathom how I'm being unreasonable in some way, and I'm starting to get the feeling you two fellas just like opposing whatever I say for the "kick" of it.. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, despite the view that you presented, history is not science, neither is it law, and historians weigh the assertions of historians, we don't. I would point out that generally speaking, we weigh the work of later historians more heavily than earlier ones, since the former have the advantage of the cumulative efforts of the latter. In this instance, Karchmar has been endorsed on this particular issue by Pavlowitch. Tomasevich, Milazzo, and Roberts accept that the instructions are genuine. We can document that by attribution or we can document it without, but I see no justification in not being consistent. In either case, it will be clear as to which historian takes which view by virtue of the footnotes, so I'm not concerned either way. You said above we needed to use direct attribution "...unless his [Karchmar's] personal opinion is supported by direct primary evidence (like Tomasevich for example)". Well, if by direct primary evidence, you meant another noted historian, it is. If you mean direct primary evidence in the sense of physical documents referenced by historians, we don't work that way, as Faintes pointed out above--we rely on secondary sources. We could just use Pavlowitch on this issue and be within wikipedia's policies.

What is interesting to me about the issue is that the latter group (and every other source) place M., his troops dispersed, in a ditch hiding from the Germans, and say that he is on the run with a few officers, out of radio contact, from then through the end of December. So I'm curious about the nature of the headquarters where Djurišić at which claimed to have met with M. and how Djurišić managed to find M. two weeks after M. fled the area. Hopefully Karchmar addresses the issue.

I understand that you view Tomasevich as the non plus ultra in this area, and he is a fine historian, but there are other fine historians out there. You have failed to answer me twice now about whether you had read Karchmar. I assume you have not, so now I ask, how can you possibly begin to evaluate his work in the face of praise in an academic review and endorsement on this particular if you have not even read the work in question? Finally, we can no more reject Karchmar based on his ethnic background as you have sought to do than we can reject Tomasevich for his (something you argued with Fkp at great length as I recall). And until you present sources supporting your assertions, they carry no weight with me here. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing, once again, your phiolosophical position on whether historiography is a science.

I read Karchmar years ago, but I'm afraid he was a very dry read (as a raw PhD) and my memory is shoddy there. I do remember that his instructions claim was based on conjecture, as I have stated before. You will also note that it was I who asked above whether someone happened to have access to Karchmar (so that one may demonstrate). This is superflous, however, as we can see from the sources quoting him that he is merely presenting a theory.

As I said, in a universe where positive assertions and negative ones have the same validity, you would be right. In our universe, someone making a claim, or proposing a theory, has to prove and stand behind it, not the one rejecting it. The burden of evidence is on him, not on anyone and everyone who does not support him - thats the whole point of attribution. Its Karchmar's theory, he has to be attributed, all those who ignore/reject him do not need to be - their positions are NOT equal as they are not proposing anything. That is how science, and the world in general, work. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

I do not understand why we are even discussing this? If Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt, we attribute it to him as his theory and we move on!

(Personal comment removed per Terms of Discussion) Sunray (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Historiography isn't history either. You don't own the article, so from my point of view your assertion about reserving your "right" is nigh meaningless. Tomasevich doesn't treat Karchmar's view, and not saying anything about an assertion is not equivalent to refutation same. Silence on a topic is just that, and not any kind of implication. And I disagree about "...the sources quoting him that he is merely presenting a theory." In regard to the specific matter at hand, the instructions, we have to my best recollection only one source referencing him, Pavlowitch, and what he says is "...The reconstruction of Djurišić's move and the convincing case for the forgeries is made by the Canadian historian Lucien Karchmar". Evidently Pavlowitch is convinced of Karchmar's theory, and that is sufficient for us to take it seriously.

And I formally ask you to retract each of the personal attacks you have made recently by striking them. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Karchmar does not size up to our standards. His book is not a university publication and you have yet to show us positive peer reviews of the book. The evidence that you've cited (reviews of other books that simply mention his name) that you believe makes him reliable is insufficient. The only review of his book that you did provide is on the fence as to whether his book is good - (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing). -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources please for that assertion. The publishers, Garland Publishing, New York: London, publish academic reference books. The current evidence is that he is taken seriously by Pavlowitch and Marko Attila Hoare, who describes his work as a classic on the chetniks. Do you have any reviews? DIREKTOR, your assertion that you read him years ago but can remember that particular point is insufficient for our purposes. If you recall, you kicked off this discussion by stating Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. I'd like to see some links to these Balkans discussions if possible (as they may contain some evidence). I have searched every mention of Karchmar on Wikipedia and all I can find are a few unevidenced assertions made by you in the course of similar arguments to the one here. I also found that Karchmar is one of two recommended "additional reading" authors on this period on Brittanica - the other one being Tomasevic. Also, please provide any peer reviews or other works you have which support your contentions. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Garland Publishing publishes textbooks, but you can sugar coat that as much as you wish. Regarding the reviews, the ball is not in my court. Nuujinn is the one who wishes to include Karchmar's book and has no reviews. It is absolutely absurd for us to accept Karchmar as a reliable source when no positive reviews have been provided by Nuujinn, especially given the topic that is at hand (a simple passing mention of his name in a different book being reviewed is, again, inadequate). What is even more absurd is the suggestion that he be treated as equivalent to Tomasevich whose book is universally praised. [12] Your willingness to accept Karchmar on a whim and on such weak grounds troubles me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

a) Garland publish academic reference books. b) Nuujinn has Karchmar on order so we can actually see what he says. c) endorsement by other historians is not "a passing mention". d)The older the book, the more difficult to find reviews. Hopefully more will be found in time - whether positive or negative. e)I am not accepting or not accepting anything. I am asking Direktor to provide evidence for the rather definite and specific claims he makes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tomasevich's "The Chetniks" was published in '75 and we have an incredible amount of reviews verifying his reliability. I see that Nuujinn is contributing book reviews that are not of Karchmar's "Draza Mihailovic and the Rise of the Chetnik Movement, 1941–1942", but of other books. That is unacceptable. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say impossible to find - just more difficult. If they are not on the internet they are unlikely to be produced overnight as access to the right kind of library is required. I am asking DIREKTOR to evidence his claims about Karchmar.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER, first of all, please do point me to the policy that requires we must have an academic review of a scholarly work in order to use that work as a source. Garland may publish textbooks, but that's irrelevant, as dissertations for PhDs are considered scholarly publications, see Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.

Then, please point me to a policy that prevents me from adding quotes from related works on a talk page.

Then, please note that I did provide a link above to an academic review of Karchmar, this one. Also note that I provided references to Pavlowitch's note on Karchmar in regard to the instructions, and to a review by Hoare on another work that mentions Karchmar's work in the same breath Tomasevich. I've added a review on another work, by Biber that also mentions Karchmar with Tomasevich in a list of acknowledged scholars on the Chetniks, as well as a review by Pavlowitch in which he asserts that the instructions were forged and used as propoganda. These demonstrate that Karchmar is considered a reputable scholar and historian, despite your and DIREKTOR's assertions to the contrary.

Now, I'm providing sources supporting what I am asserting, while you and DIREKTOR are just talking, and I suggest that both you and he begin to read this page more carefully and provide sources for what you are claiming. Without sources, your assertions do not carry any weight with me, please review point 8 in the rules at the top of this page. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence that Karchmar is on par with Tomasevich requires that you provide academic reviews of Karchmar's book as DIREKTOR did with Tomasevich's. I will not allow for double standards.

No, I did not miss that sole review (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing) and I stated that it "is on the fence as to whether his book is good".

If Karchmar is the "reputable scholar and historian" that you claim he is then why is it so difficult for you to provide actual positive reviews of HIS book? Until you do so your assertion does not carry any weight. Everything that you just added to the quotations page is of reviews of books which we are not even discussing. They are irrelevant. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my long abscence, and I see the mediation has been moving so hope I´ll be able to catch up things with time although I probably may not have as much time as I desire. Just as curiosity, I read some dispared arguments about Karchmar and Pavlowitsch being Serbs. Are there any sources backing this? I mean, Pavlowitch (possibly Pavlović) can be Serb, but also Croat, Bosnian, even Slovene... and Karchmar is not at all a Serbian surname. Regards to everyone! FkpCascais (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I haven't found more reviews yet, nor am I obligated to, as that is not a requirement to establish reliability of a source per WP:RS. Nowhere have I compared Tomasevich's body of work to Karchmar's body of work, nowhere have I criticized Tomasevich as being unreliable. Karchmar is supported by Pavlowitch, and an acknowledged professional historian, as I have shown. There is no question that we can use Pavlowitch, and, if someone has access to Karchmar, we can use that as well, no question about it. This entire extended discussion is just about how to attribute the material, and a good example of why we cannot move forward on difficult issues. The dogged refusal to simply document a divergence in academic sources is not helpful. You cannot control this discussion by exerting your personal views on what is reliable and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, or what is allowed and what is not. You must reference policies supporting your position, as must DIREKTOR, if you want to change my opinions here, or sources, if you want to argue weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but you wish to represent the two books as equivalent in reliability without any substantial evidence proving that they are. Again you are absolutely unfit to deem Karchmar a "reputable scholar and historian". You have failed to provide reviews that show Karchmar's book is positively "vetted by the scholarly community" in accordance with WP:RS. What you have done, and I'm really sick of repeating myself, is provide reviews of other books which simply mention Karchmar, come to your own conclusions that he is reliable from these passing mentions or "endorsements" as you like to call them, and say that they are somehow sufficient which obviously they aren't. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer: You have failed to demonstrate the unreliability of Karchmar (see my summary of this discussion, below). As Nuujiin points out, Pavlowitch supports Karchmar. Further, Alex Kitroeff, in his review of Karchmar, concludes: "... specialists on wartime resistance movements or on Yugoslav history will welcome the appearance of this study even in its present form." It is not up to any of us to cherry pick sources based on our own original research. BTW, the glowing reviews of Tomasevich you refer to are known in the publishing business as "blurbs." They do not constitute peer reviews, only excerpts from reviews. In their present form, they bear no weight. On the other hand, the review by Kitroeff posted by Nuujinn is a valid peer review. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you yourself are unable to gain access to the full peer reviews of Tomasevich does not lessen their weight. Also, just because the publisher has opted to include excerpts of some of the reviews in the forward does not diminish the importance of the reviews. Kitroeff's review is the only vetted review of Karhcmar's book that has been provided and is hardly the convincer that you try to make it out to be. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That Karchmar's work is a reliable source is established by RS policy by the mere fact that it was originally a dissertation for the PhD. The mention of his name along side other historians acknowledged as professionals in not needed, by policy, to establish that his work is a reliable source, but rather to help establish the relative weight of his work. To argue that he is not respected by other professional historians, you would need to produce quotes from professional historians of similar stature which assess Karchmar in a negative light. You have not done that.

In reference to me, you have said "...you wish to represent the two books as equivalent in reliability without any substantial evidence proving that they are", no, I do not, as it isn't necessary, and I'm not in a position to make such a judgement. You have also said, 'Again you are absolutely unfit to deem Karchmar a "reputable scholar and historian"'. I agree, I am not a professional historian, and thus I am relying on the fact that he has a PhD from a highly ranked university, per policy, had his work published by an academic press, per policy, and I have turned to reliable secondary sources to establish that other professional historical regard him as reputable, per policy. None of my activity here violates any policy of which I am aware, so I ask you again, what policy have I violated? On the other hand, just as I am not myself fit to make such determinations, neither are you, yet you repeatedly assert that Karchmar is not a reliable source without supporting that statement with sources, which seems to me to violate the policy against original research. And you are mischaracterizing my actions in a manner which I believe is bordering on personal attacks, and I respectfully ask that you cease doing that. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you have provided adequate documentation regarding Karchmar. PRODUCER has not supported his claims. I've requested that we now move on. Would you be willing to return to the main question here: The question of collaboration? Sunray (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple more sources added. One, Lee and Loyd on sources for WWII which lists Milazzo, Karchmar and Tomasevich on the Chetniks. Also MacDonald citing Tim Judah to the effect that the instructions are accepted by mainstream historians as a forgery. I am trying to get hold of a copy of Judah to see what he actually says.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief summary of discussion on sources

Most of the above discussion has been on the use of Karchmar as a source and the merits of K. as compared to Tomasevich. Direktor and Producer have argued that Karchmar is not a source comparable to Tomasevich. While there has been much argument, repeated requests by Fainites to produce sources to justify this conclusion have not been addressed. Most recently Producer has argued that there are no peer reviews to substantiate Karchmar's reliability as a source while there are many that substantiate Tomasevich's reliability--concluding that the peer review provided by Nuujiin is somehow lacking.

Recently, Producer has made the following statement, directed at Nuujiin:

"Your insistence that Karchmar is on par with Tomasevich requires that you provide academic reviews of Karchmar's book as DIREKTOR did with Tomasevich's. I will not allow for double standards.

No, I did not miss that sole review (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing) and I stated that it 'is on the fence as to whether his book is good'."

This is, in my opinion, an example of original research. It is not up to editors to judge the relative value of sources (or whether one is on the fence or not). Only citations can do that and none have been provided.

Based on the evidence presented, it seems clear that both sources are viable and there is no justification for arguing that Tomasevich somehow trumps Karchmar. Unless and until someone can present a source that disproves this, we had best move on. There are two topics to be concluded: War crimes and collaboration. There has been progress on the war crimes issue. Can we now get back to the issue of collaboration? Sunray (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn provided one review. A review which, if we want avoid personal interpretations of the review, gave the book three stars. That's what his sole review has judged the value of Karchmar's book to be. Compare that to the numerous positive reviews that Tomasevich's book has received and then tell me why they should be regarded as equally reliable and carry equal weight. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitroeff, writing in 1988, states: "None of all the works published on Yugoslavia's wartime resistance movement, however, go into qui[t]e so much detail in describing Mihailovic's activities as does Lucien Karchmar's lengthy two volume study of Mihailovic..." That, along with the Pavlovitch reference, would seem more than adequate to justify reliability. This is not a popularity contest. There is no policy that tells us to gauge reliability by number of reviews. Moreover, you have not demonstrated "numerous positive reviews," only a book publisher's blurbs to help sell T's book. No one is questioning Tomasevich's authority as a source. However, you have not shown any evidence that Karchmar should not also be used. Until you do that, we need to move on. Sunray (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the level of unsourced endless argument on this page. DIREKTOR claimed Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. but has produced no sources in support of this claim. PRODUCER claims that Karchmar does not size up to our standards but again produces nothing in support of this claim. Professional historians whose work is utilised by other reputable historians in the field cannot be excluded in this way. Enough arguments. Please produce sources to back your claims.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to dispute Karchmar further, they are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, nobody is saying we need to dispute or exclude him as a source, at this juncture at least. All I am saying (and I still can't believe its causing such a long discussion!) is that Karchmar should be attributed in the text that describes the falsification theory. Why? 2 reasons: 1) Because we know, from peer reviews, that he (quote) "does his best to give Mihailović the benefit of the doubt" (which indisputably and quite unambiguously implies bias in the latter's favor). And 2) because this particular theory he proposes is far from universally accepted.

Nuujinn proposes bilateral attribution. In an academic text, this is never done. As I pointed out: evidence and support are never required for a negative, only for the positive, the alternative is a world where arguments from ignorance are valid. Philosophy aside, a neutral execution of the idea in practice is, well, impractical. If we were to do this and do this fairly, we would have to list Karchmar as the author of the theory on one side, and every single author that ignored or rejected his theory on the other - as opposed to letting Nuujinn pick and choose just a few of the latter group.

As I said above: if Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt with other sources, lets attribute it to him and move on. I do not see the problem, I honestly don't. It seems almost as though Nuujinn and Fainites assume everything I say is biased by default and should be opposed, essentially for opposition's sake. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try and avoid offensive personal remarks! You have made quite extreme claims about Karchmar above and I have asked you to provide evidence of that more than once. It was agreed that claims made in these discussions would be sourced. Unsourced claims have no weight here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What "unsourced claim" am I making right above that you want verified, exactly? What is the "unsourced claim"? Please specify. The peer review quote has already been sourced by Nuujinn, see the first paragraph of p.152 here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You made unsourced claim that Karchmar is a Serbian nationalist. Can provide reliable source? BoDu (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This one Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. about which I have already asked you three times. I have asked for links to the Balkans discussions, in case there are any sources or evidence there. I hunted myself, as I told you above, for all references to Karchmar on Wiki. All I found was similar unevidenced assertions by you. I also asked for any sources you have describing Karchmar in those terms thus possibly having some relevence to the issue of his reliability as a source. I have hunted for references to Karchmar myself in reputable sources on the subject. It is disruptive to merely rubbish sources produced by other people by making extreme assertions about them as if it were fact yet produce nothing in support of your assertions. Or this one Karchmar is famous for hatching various "theories" that absolve Chetniks, along the lines of "well this might've happened, who's to say it didn't?". If you cannot source your assertions they should not be here and this whole page, during which you have been asked for sources several times, is a disruptive waste of everyboy elses time. If you wish to pursue this further, go to RSN, but I suspect you will need sources there too. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, Sunray - cut it out. Firstly: I am NOT disputing Karchmar as a source, Sunray, I am merely suggestimng that this particular claim of his should be attributed. Secondly, Fainites, I am supporting that position with the peer review that (among other things) describes Karchmar as "doing his best to grant Mihailović the benefit of the doubt", and with the (sourced) fact that this particular claim is disputed in other sources.

Now then, if you two gentlemen would kindly explain exactly why I am being attacked and threatened with sanctions by two admins for 1) "disputing the use of Karchmar as a source" (Sunray), which is demonstrably untrue, and 2) arguing on the basis of my opinion and unsourced claims (Fainites) - when both my arguments are supported by sources?? Quite amazingly, I am doing neither of the two. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it you no longer stand by your earlier claims about Karchmar then?Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was merely stating an opinion Fainites, I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word for anything.. There really is a theme of unnecessary confrontation permeating this whole affair.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, what source have you provided that refutes Karchmar's claim, rather than those that simply attribute the document to M.? To refute Karchmar's claim, one would have to address Karchmar's claim directly, and I cannot recall such a source, nor can I find one on the quotations subpage. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@"To refute Karchmar's claim, one would have to address Karchmar's claim directly."

No indeed Nuujinn. That is your presupposition, which, as I have explained earlier, in essence validates an argument from ignorance. A claim is not "valid by default" simply because it is not directly denied, nor even when it cannot hypothetically be denied. Ignoring a positive assertion (a proposed theory e.g.) is, to all effects and purposes, equivalent to denying it actively. Your position presupposes that an author or scholar would be required to list any and all theories he may disagree with (e.g. "..No. 123: I don't think aliens assassinated President Kennedy; No. 124: I also dispute the proposition that the Earth is 5,000 years old;.." :)). For another example, if I could somehow publish in some nameless rag the assertion that "dreams are caused by medicinal pixies", lets say by way of signing over a Jaguar to the editor of the Croatian Medical Journal, your assertion would imply that E.D. Miller from Johns Hopkins agrees with me because he never "addressed my claim directly".

Any source that attributes the document to Mihailović, does indeed oppose Karchmar's theory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposes, perhaps, refutes, no. Let's be precise in our wording. Tomasevich claims A, Karchmar refutes A asserting B, Pavlowitch supports Karchmar, asserting B is correct and A incorrect. Tomasevich has not addressed B, so the claim A is not a refutation of B. I've studied Russell, your characterization of my assertion is simply incorrect, as I'm not arguing whether A or B is correct, only documenting that both A and B are assertions that are usable under our policies. Do you have any sources supporting your claims? If not, I'm not really interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ay, there's the rub: the proper sequence would be simply "Karchmar claims A", "Tomasevich opposes A". "B" is irrelevant as to the validity of "A", as is listing various other authors that oppose or support "A". What I am saying is that Karchmar's proposition ("A") is not agreed-upon, and that assertion is sourced. (That would be the second of the two reasons for attributing Karchmar.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you made unsourced claim that Karchmar is a Serbian nationalist. Can provide source which supports this claim? BoDu (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you BoDu, please read the discussion more carefully next time --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Working on new draft of article

The article is now unlocked and I have moved the draft article that was worked on during mediation. Some clean-up is required, particularly with respect to notes and references. Here's an initial "to do" list. Participants may suggest additions, as needed. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Tasks

• Clean up notes and references
• Consider additions to the article

• Early years - World War I and between the wars (per old article)
• Capture, trial and execution - add draft from mediation page?

• Discussion and consensus on collaboration
• Discussion on "ethnic cleansing" war crimes

Thanks to all who have worked on this. Let's keep the "Terms of discussion" (above) in mind as we proceed. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks lovely Sunray. Just a minor typo point. It reads On the other hand, Mihailovic sought to prevent Tito from assuming the leadership role in the resistance,[39][40] Further talks were scheduled for October 16th.[41] as his goal was the restoration of the Yugoslavian Monarchy and the establishment of a Greater Serbia[42] I assume the bit as his goal... should be after ...resistance,.... I shall shift it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Sunray (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on additions

What is needed in addition to the current version of the article to make it more complete? Sunray (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This sub-thread (that you've added to the top for some reason) is completely unrelated to resolving the dispute. Further sidetracking the resolution of contentious issues already taking over 16 months to resolve is a bad idea, in my humble opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your views on that. This is now a moderated discussion and extends beyond the mediation or the mediation participants. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Sunray (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a moderated discussion? I for one don't remember agreeing to moderation, or moderators for that matter. It seems rather irregular that you should unilaterally presume to assume the same position you had on the (failed) mediation project. But I'm not going to press the issue, even if this is a moderated discussion, it is a moderated discussion on the dispute. I will also add that it is precisely your insistance on going through the whole of the entire (comparatively large) Wikipedia article, as opposed to merely the disputed edits, that contributed immensely to the length of the mediation, and the subsequent lack of interest and involvement by all of the participants. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the conditions for unlocking the article was that there would be a moderated discussion on this talk page. Although the discussion begins with the draft that was prepared in the mediation, it extends to the whole article (essentially because the new draft incorporates the whole article). The other reason for it being a moderated (as opposed to mediated) discussion is due to the fact that we are including any editor with an interest in this topic and a willingness to abide by the Terms of discussion. Although that was the subject of considerable discussion (ref, Archives 4 & 5), perhaps it isn't clear enough from the instructions on this page. I will add something to the Terms about this. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll want to expand the legacy section somewhat. I think I can work out how to treat how M. has been used as a propaganda tool, and that might be worth breaking out as a separate section, but that will have to wait I fear until we'd done with the ethnic cleansing discussion. I also note that we have some questionable sources, such as the spartacus site and Martin's work, and too many external links, but I recognize that this section is about expansion, not reduction. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on collaboration

Nov 11 meeting

We have in the article "The meeting, organized through one of Mihailović's representatives in Belgrade, took place between the Chetnik leader and an Abwehr official, although it remains controversial if the initiative came from the Germans, from Mihailović himself, or from his liaison officer in Belgrade.[citation needed]". Without a source, we shouldn't keep this. I have added a quotation from Lampe's work on the quotation page which attribute the initiative to Milhailovic. Do we have any sources supporting or refuting Lampe's characterization? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The meeting was arranged jointly by Captain Joseph Matl of the Abwehr and Colonel Branislav Pantić, Mihailović's chief delegate and representative in Belgrade. The two have already met in Belgrade on October 28, when "the Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to 'place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism'." (Tomasevich I, Chapter 7) The meeting with Mihailović in person was arranged (for ten days later) as a continuation of this talks.

In other words, the initiative was Mihailović's, who started the negotations. The meeting in person at Divci cannot be viewed outside that context. Or outside the context that the Partisans were still their de facto allies when the approach was made. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but could you provide a page number and move the quote to the quotation subpage? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the book with me at the moment (I got it at the city library, its very hard to find and costs some 150€). I did quote the text verbatim, however, in my work on the First anti-Partisan Offensive article, but neglected to specify the exact page and posted instead a link which is now dead. Its there in Chapter 7, however, I invite anyone to verify.

But if there's any doubt you can find the same info on Roberts p.35. He further states that Matl was the one who suggested to Pantić that Mihailović comes to Divci in person. That is very likely, Matl was far more enthusistic to accept the Chetnik proposals of cooperation than his superiors. However, as I said, it must not be neglected why Miahilović's personal representative (Pantić) was engaged in negotiations with the Abwehr in the first place, or who sent him to Belgrade to start the negotiations.

Those are the full events, and we can now probably see the cause of the controversy. 1) Mihaiović dispatched his representatives Pantić and Mitrović to Belgrade to offer military cooperation and request assisstance and supplies from the Germans. 2) The German representative Captain Matl then suggests to Pantić that Mihailović and his Abwehr superiors meet in Divci. 3) Pantić then relays this to Mihailović and the latter accepts.

The "controversy" lies in the fact that, even though the personal meeting with Mihailović himself was suggested by the Abwehr Captain Matl, the negotiations of late October and early November were initiated by the Chetniks to begin with, who sent their people to the Abwehr on October 28. So if someone were to play word games he could theoretically say "the Germans invited Draža!", but the actual facts are a bit more complex. (This must also be taken in the context of the three-sided simoultaneous military operations, but I can't go into more deatil because of the 500-word limit.. :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, put the relevant quotes on the quotation subpage. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to collaboration, it must be made clear that Mihailović himself never signed any specific agreements, to use his own words "because of public opinion". It is that he actively condoned and promoted the collaboration of his immediate subordinates that is the issue here. For example, he actually ordered them to do so on at least one occasion, and personally commanded collaborating MVAC formations. In other words, the collaboration way done with his consent.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have found some quotes, Pavlowitch on page 65 asserts that one cannot know who initiated the meeting, and Roberts, p. 35, attributes the initiative to Matl. I think that between the four sources, we can document that it's not clear who initiated the meeting on 11 November 1941. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on war crimes

While the term "ethnic cleansing" was used in an earlier version of the article, based on some of the discussion during the mediation, its use seems problematic, at best. The term was first used in the 1980s and only came into popular use in the 1990s. Thus, its application to events that occurred during World War II is questionable. Moreover, as Naimark (2007) points out, the term "ethnic cleansing" can be used to mean a wide variety of actions, ranging from forced deportation of ethnic groups, to genocide. As ethnic cleansing has not been clearly established by the courts as a category of criminal offense, its use is ambiguous.[13] Were war crimes committed by the Chetniks? What evidence is available? Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, such scholarly terms are used retroactively as a matter of course. The term "genocide" was defined well after WWII yet it is used quite often to describe events long predating its first use. The same goes for ethnic cleansing itself. In short, if the sources use it, there is no reason for us to represent them falsely. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the citation I gave? Sunray (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. Should I cite all the historiographic sources innumerable that use the term in conjunction with events prior to 15 years ago? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is needed, perhaps you could put the historiographic sources on the subpage for quotes. The point made by Naimark is that ethnic cleansing is a vague term. I am suggesting that we focus on terms that are definable, such as genocide or other specific war crimes. Sunray (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether the term is too vague or whether it applies to the events in question. That is WP:OR. Lets leave it to the actual historians please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What historians? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point, all I'm saying is that if the sources use the term "cleansing" we should not censor that. (And as it happens they do.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It isthe point. Sources/quotes please for all assertions, or referral to the quotation page where they are set out.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added some sources relative to this issue to the quotation page. I think this is a very tricky issue. Milhailovic generally avoided doing anything, at least openly, that would endanger his reputation with the Allies. I think there is no question that what we would call ethnic cleansing was rampant throughout the region as various groups jockeyed for power. Revenge played a role, I am sure. Note that there is disagreement regarding the instructions supposedly issued by Milhailovic, which some sources regard as a forgery. I think one could make the case that he was not in a position to stop some of the chetnik groups from engaging in reprisals and what we would call ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure as yet as to how to deal with this particular issue, it will require careful thought. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn. The agreement on this page was that decisions would be based on sources and evidence. Sunray (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My primary concern is how to weigh the sources. For example, both Lerner and Mulaj attribute ethnic cleansing to Milhailovic, but it is more passing mention than significant coverage. Malcolm points to the likelihood that the instructions to which both Lerner and Mulaj allude was a forgery by M's subordinates, and I believe that is supported in Roberts and Tomosevich, but I need to find the relevant passages. I assume that we would give more weight to the works of historians focussing on Mihailovic than we would to those treating a broader topic which only briefly treat Milhailovic. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

tbh I do not see the problem. If the sources disagree let us simply list both views, either with or without attribution. As for weighing the sources in general, I would crown Tomasevich as Jozo I, King of the Sources. The guy's work represents the raw bedrock upon which most of the modern research on this subject rests. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich attributes the directive to being written by Mihailović and that he sent it to Pavle Đurišić and Đorđije Lašić. (added quote) -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Producer points out that Tomasevich attributes such statements to Mihailović. That seems to me to be important in an article on the latter. I also note that the term "ethnic cleansing" is not used but rather "cleansing." As pointed out at the top of this thread, this can mean various things from deportation to genocide. Nuujinn has agreed to look for the actual statements in Roberts or Tomasevich. This seems to me to be the kind of focus needed for this discussion. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, the "cleansing" of ethnicities is called "ethnic cleansing". Your position on this is simply without grounds. If the sources use the term "cleansing" for these events that is the term we must use. The rest is your WP:OR, and your judgement that the term is not "defined enough". The term happens to be in use all over Wikipedia, and by providing context from the source we can easily remove any ambiguity. I shall simply never agree that this page and this page alone should ignore what the sources say in favour of your own standards of terminology with regard to these events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, sometime ago you said you were going to produce some sources on this. I'm looking for quotes that connect "ethnic cleansing" (or any other reference to cleansing) with Mihailović. Sources first. Then discussion, as agreed. BTW, the contention that "ethnic cleansing" is a vague term is sourced. As I have stated, I was quoting Naimark (2007). Sunray (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In the page where I pulled the quote from, Tomasevich uses the terms "cleansing actions", "mass terror", and "terrorist methods" to describe the massacres that the Chetniks carried out against the civilian populace (in this case the Muslims). On another page, discussing the high death toll in Yugoslavia, he uses the term "genocide" to describe the actions of the Chetniks. [14] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Very useful references. If the article is going to use the terms "terrorism" or "genocide," we will need further info. Do you have quotes that give context? Sunray (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded my previous quote on the quotations page. This should clear up any questions. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sunray I truly am astonished as to why you constantly demand sources of me? Imo it is clear that I made no specific claims, but instead simply defended strict adherence to the terminology of our sources - whatever that may be.

@PRODUCER. That's why I like Tomasevich: he rarely presumes to use his own words and instead uses his sources. The Chetniks themselves apparently used the term "cleansing actions", quite ahead of their time. And we can see that Tomasevich does not consider the 1941 directive to have been a "forgery" (which may well turn out to be a fringe conspiracy theory), and anyway, with him ordering "cleansing actions" the issue seems moot.

In any case, the quote refers to the "second" and "third groups", what was the first group? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is from a while back when I had access to the book and was working on the massacres of Muslims section, but I recall the first group being Croats. Edit: Found a link to the page that I quoted from (it's the Serbo-Croatian version however). [15] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 07:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent PRODUCER, thank you so much. We now have access to a superbly detailed and unbiased treatise on instances of Chetnik terror and their connection to the Supreme Headquarters (Mihailovic). The fact that the link is in Serbo-Croatian should not be a problem. The publication's original language is English, being first published in San Francisco, and it can be easily verified whether the text was translated faithfully. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who has an actual copy of Tomasevich rather than the partial google books? That would be great if anyone did. I am going to see if my local library can get hold of one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The chetniks volume is in storage at my uni, I requested it yesterday. The occupation volume is in general holding, as is Roberts, Pavlowitch, Milazzo, and some others. I have had all of them in hand and cribbed notes, but did not write out full quotes, last year. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news. I have copies of Pavlowitch, Roberts, Ramet and some others if anyone wants me to look up a quote or page number.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to be useful and productive. With the sources produced, I think we may be ready to write something for the article. Should there be a separate section regarding war crimes, or should it be dealt with in one of the existing sections for World War II? Anyone interested in preparing a draft of the text? Sunray (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I also have a very interesting book called Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia by David Bruce MacDonald. It has sections on historical revisionism relating to WWII. He describes very carefully the parallel historical revisionism that both countries indulged in, trying to exonerate and "victim-centre" their side and paint the other side as - well - evil, anti-semitic, fascist bastards. I mention it because he specifically names Philip J. Cohen in his Serbia's Secret War as a pro-Croatian revisionist. He notes others too but I mention Cohen as he is an author who has been cited as a source. It was published in 2002. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful perspective to ensure NPOV. Tomasevich supports this view when he refers to: "...a terrible pattern of terror and counterterror [that] emerged in various parts of the country during the Second World War..." (Tomasevich, The Chetniks pp. 258-259). Sunray (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One of the things he discusses is "decontextualisation", for example, describing massacres or ethnic cleansing of one band or group against another out of any context of revenge or reprisals but simply as if it were part of an ideologically motivated grand plan. Each side has it's own sets of history books and sources. Key figures in this process are people like Stepinac and of course Chetntniks, Ustashe and other groups of armed forces. Other themes are equating organised genocidal actions with more isolated smaller massacres.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added some material on this to the quotations page taken from Tomasevich's Preface to Vol II. He addresses the issue of biases in the historical literature about Yugoslavia in the Second World War. Sunray (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just put most of pp. 169-170 from Tomosevich's Chetniks on the quotations page. Context is critical, note that Tomosevich is showing that M. agreed with Moljevic's plan for a greater Serbia by referencing the instructions, which do use the word cleansing. However, Tomosevich claims that Moljevic's plans were based on expulsion of people, and not genocide, which is the major connotation of the modern term "ethnic cleansing" (at least in US English). On the basis of this passage, I feel that unqualified use of "ethnic cleansing" introduces an unneeded POV. I haven't gotten very far yet in this chapter, and there may be other areas in which Tomosevich does link M. directly to massacres or acts of what we would call genocide, but I do not think that is the case here. Whether or not this notion that the Serbs could simply move people around without resorting to force or violence to one degree or another is a valid question, but one which Tomosevich does not answer at this point in his text. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to focus less on Moljevic and more on Mihailovic. While Mihailovic supported Moljevic's plan (written in June 1941), he later had his own plan (written in December 1941). Tomasevich speculates that Mihailovic's plan was based on "removing" (question mark in the original as even Tomasevich is unsure of what Mihailovic precisely meant) the Muslim and Croat population. My previous quotes show that the Chetniks, especially Đurišić whom Tomasevich explicitly states the plan was sent to, implemented this "removal" through the use of mass terror - be it by expelling the populace or by massacring them. The term "ethnic cleansing" is not limited to genocide (which the Chetniks' actions have been described as by Hoare) as Princeton defines it as "the mass expulsion and killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area." [16] The use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is most certainly qualified. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer says that Tomasevich refers to "removing" the Muslims and Croats and puts a question mark beside the word "removing." That seems to support the citation I gave at the top of this section (Naimark). It seems to me that we need to be clear on what is being talked about. Is it mass expulsion or killing? Nuujinn has made the point that using the term "ethnic cleansing" introduces a particular POV and should be avoided. The comments by Tomasevich (both in the Preface to Vol II [17] and in the cite by Producer, above) suggest caution. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide". Ethnic cleansing is defined in most sources (contrary perhaps to popular perception in the US and UK) simply as the "removal of the population of an ethnic group from a territory". Genocide, i.e. the killing of the members of an ethnic group - may be used as a means of ethnic cleansing. That is to say, ethnic cleansing may be achieved by a plurality of methods, with genocide on one side of the spectrum, and forced emigration on the other. Sources in general make a clear distinction that ethnic cleansing is simply not "genocide" in and of itself.

With the above in mind, I propose we do not censor the term "ethnic cleansing" - used by our sources(!) - but rather that we use it in the proper context. Making it plain that when the term refers to ethnic cleansing by genocide, and when it means ethnic cleansing by forced emigration (we have plentiful examples of both in WWII Yugoslavia). The term ethnic cleansing is not "POV" simply because it is not specific. It is used profusely by a vast number of high-quality scholarly publications, including our own, and as we all know, it has an entire article on enWiki. To assume its usage will imply genocide where that is unwarranted is an assumption that scholars, as well as Wiki editors, do not and will not make the exact meaning clear. This is Balkans history, and one might say the term applies here more than anywhere. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, in these Balkans issues the term is more accurate than either "genocide" or "removal", in fact that is why it came into use. When a military group wishes to clear an area of an ethnicity, they typically kill most or all of the members they find, having already scared-off the rest of the target population, and they destroy or burn the homes and property of the target group preventing them from returning. This activity is not really "genocide" since most of the population leaves with their lives, and its not really "removal" or "forced emigration" since the target population was not actually "removed" or forced to leave by the militants (e.g. crowded into busses and shipped off). The activity, a "mixture" of genocide and forced removal, is only well defined by its goal, that is, the "cleansing" of the ethnic group from a territory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My meaning here is not easy to follow, so I'll try to sum it up (even if I do post a few extra words, for which I do apologize). At its core and definition, ethnic cleansing is activity with the purpose and goal of removing an ethnic group from a territory. It can be done by killing the group ("genocide"), it can be done by physically "removing" them, or it can be done by scaring them off by a campaign of terror, killing some and preventing the return of the others. The latter is most frequent in the Balkans in general. What I'm trying to say is that "genocide" is sometimes an accurate description of the activities of a militant group performing ethnic cleansing (ethnic cleansing by genocide), whereas "removal" or "expulsion" is sometimes not accurate at all and quite euphemistic since it the "cleansing" activity might include thousands of victims. This is why our sources quite wisely use the term "cleansing" or "ethnic cleansing", which denotes the goal, not the means(!), of the operation. The bottom line is, unless someone wishes to challenge the neutrality of the sources themselves, we should not presume to interfere with the sources' terminology in describing these extremely complex and controversial events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the two authors on the quotes page who use the phrase are Malcolm and Lerner, though there is a direct translation from documents at the time referring to "cleansing". The problem with using "ethnic cleansing" in general though when it is not used by the main sources is that it is a modern formulation which, as you say, covers the gamut from creating a situation by the use of terror so that people leave of their own accord, through forceable removal or "bussing", to genocide. It would be preferable if it's meaning were always clear so one could use either "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" but it's meaning doesn't seem to be that settled. If the relevant sources use it, that's fine but we shouldn't bandy it about retrospectively. We certainly shouldn't presume to decide upon it's use ourselves when it is not used by sources. It's far too inchoate. For example, is the refusal of Tito to allow the Serbs back into Kosovo into the lands that had been taken by collaborationist Albanians ethnic cleansing? Or was it only the initial removal of the Serbs that counts? When the Ustasha specifically encouraged Muslims to join with Catholic Croats in attacking and removing Serbs, are reprisals of Serbs against Muslims in their midst acts of ethnic cleansing or acts of pre-emptive self defence as claimed (and vice versa). Not that this is particularly relevant to this article, but you see what I mean. If people are massacring, removing, terrorising other groups context and accuracy is more important than the word.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would add that the term is used in titles of works (Mulaj, Lerner). In actual accounts, the term "cleansing" is used, and as Fainites has pointed out, our concern here must be with accuracy. As Malcom (1994) states: "there is no definite evidence that Draza Mihailovic himself ever called for ethnic cleansing." Unless and until we can find an actual attribution of ethnic cleansing to Mihailovic, to ensure NPOV, I can see no justification for use of the term. Now, are participants ready to begin writing? Sunray (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)::I should point out that Lerner does not attribute the "abhorrant words" (p. 104) "ethnic cleansing" to Milhailovic, but rather only the term "cleansing". Malcolm in his work suggests the instructions from Milhailovic were a forgery and suggests that there is no direct link between M and "ethnic cleansing" So the sources that we have so far which use the term "ethnic cleansing" either do not use the term in direct reference to Milhailovic or do so (in the case of Malcolm) denying that there is direct evidence that Mihailovic called for ethnic cleansing. That the chetniks engaged in acts of terror is not in question, nor is the notion that Mihailovic knew what was happening, but absent a source attributing the term "ethnic cleansing" to Mihailovic's actions, we should not make that attribution ourselves. In addition, there is much in question as to the degree of control he had over the Chetniks in the field. Use of the term "cleansing" is perfectly appropriate as we have multiple sources which use that term directly in regard to Milhailovic. Going further than that is, I think, crossing the line into synth. "Ethnic cleansing" is, for better or worse, a loaded term we need not use, let's just stick to what the sources say and not draw our own conclusions. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, if the sources call it "ethnic cleansing" I am fine with calling it "ethnic cleansing", in whichever situation that might apply. I see no reason whatsoever why a term should not be used retrospectively (if the sources use it) - not only is the term "ethnic cleansing" used retrospectively in a huge number of scholarly publications, it is used retrospectively on Wikipedia itself as well (i.e. there are no policy-based grounds for avoiding it either). A vast host of scientific terms is used retrospecitely, just as "ethnic cleansing", "genocide" being another obvious example. As I said before, I see no real argument there whatsoever, and one needs a very good argument to avoid using a sourced term.

@Sunray, I do not see the difference between the terms "cleansing" (as referring to ethnic groups) and "ethnic cleansing". If I'm missing something, please point it out. That said, in line with the above view (since there really is no difference) I am also not opposed to using the word "cleansing" instead of "ethnic cleansing" if that would be more agreeable to you.
In general, I propose we use the term "cleansing actions" (with quotation marks) and in this quote the contemporary Chetnik terminology - as well as the sources themselves (far from applying any term retrospectively).

Re the connection with Mihailović himself. I am quite surprised at Nuujin's post above. We currently do have a strong "case" linking Mihailović to (ethnic) cleansing operations in Eastern Bosnia - in two distinct aspects (see Tomasevich on Chetnik mass terror)

• Firstly, Mihailović/Chetnik SHQ seems to be the author of the Chetnik ethnic policy in general. While two sources do state the claim that the document might have been a forgery, this does not justify our ignoring the document by a long shot. The policy ("Instructions") of the SHQ should be elaborated upon - with the claims of its alleged falsification by Chetnik defendants mentioned with attribution, i.e. "scholars XY state it might have been a forgery etc.". Though, in all objectivity, I cannot really add credence to the falsification claim, in light of Mihailović's and the Chetniks open adherence to Moljević's ideas of ethnic homogeneity.
• Secondly. The sources show that the "cleansing actions" in question, the "worst" ones of note, were done under the direction of the SHQ (Mihailović). I would quote the source itself but that would deny the point of having a quotation page, I've highlighted the relevant passages.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that this is not an article on Chetnik mass terror. Thus, we should briefly review the evidence linking M. to "cleansing" operations (bearing in mind that Malcolm (p. 179) says there is none [18]--and probably including the quote from him on this). We could also set the section up with Tomasevich's disclaimers about terror and counter-terror during WWII, as set out in his Preface to Volume II. [19] When we use the vague (and euphemistic) term "cleansing," we should endeavor to clarify exactly what it means (deportation, mass transportation, genocide, or what).

When participants refer to the quotations page, it would be helpful if they would specify the author and page and provide a link. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including, with attribution, what Malcolm has to say on this in his history of Bosnia - but I am strongly opposed to placing much weight on him as opposed to the more focused, detailed, and critically acclaimed work of Tomasevich. It must also be noted that the Sandžak (pronounced "Sanjak"), where much of the cleansing Tomasevich is referring to took place - is not in Bosnia.

This would be my proposal:

1. A brief introduction (three or four sentences) into Chetnik cleansing and terror activities in general, based on Tomasevich's treatise, but also including a sentence based on his disclaimers.
2. A more detailed paragraph or two on the cleansing actions directly attributed to Mihailović himself. Including the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.).
3. A brief introduction (a couple of sentences) into the Moljević-based Chetnik ethnic policy, with an explanation on the Moljević-based "territorial proposals formulated by the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in the summer of 1941 and in September 1941".
4. A paragraph on the "Instructions". This should explain what the instructions entail, and should end with an attributed statement about the possibility of the document being a forgery.

With regard to the "Instructions". It must be understood why these are claimed to be a forgery. The most important point here is that, for whatever reason, the "Instructions" closely mimic both the Moljević theories and what the Chetniks actually did during WWII. The question is whether these were based on the actions by the forger, or whether the actions were based on the order. If the document was forged it is also possible that the Chetnik commanders, acting in accordance with Mihailović's general territorial policy and orders, needed a single, clear-cut document to absolve themselves to some measure. That is to say, there is little question that the "Instructions" lay out both Chetnik general policy and Chetnik actions, these things were actually done in great measure, - the only question is whether the document itself, a formal order from Mihailović, was a forgery.

There is also little question whether Mihailović was indeed a proponent of Moljević's ethno-territorial theories (as we can see from his "territorial proposals") and was not averse to ethnic "cleansing actions" themselves (as we can see from the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia "actions"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source directly attributing the cleansing actions in the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.) to Mihailović himself? Do you have a source explaining explaining why the instructions are claimed to be a forgery? And, perhaps most importantly, do you have a source that attributes the various massacres and cleansing actions to the M's instructions, rather than to a desire for revenge and settling scores, old and new, between the various bands and groups in the field? I could make any number of suppositions, guesses, or assertions regarding the situation, and I have lots of questions about what happened. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about those questions, as we are only supposed to reflect what sources say. Also, what you are proposing is, I think, putting undue emphasis on this particular issue, and we don't need to duplicate the massacre section in the chetnik article here. The paucity of good sources we have in terms of the instructions bothers me, I'll try to find something in Roberts and Pavlowitch on the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, again, I'm more than a little surprised at your request. Nuujinn, the troops in southern Serbia and Montenegro at that time were under the direct control of the Chetnik SHQ, i.e. Mihailovic, who was there on the spot. Perhaps you're missing some context there. Tomasevich is the source, and he clearly states that cleansing actions were ordered by SHQ. Not only is it perfectly clear that Tomasevich, who is talking about the supreme command continuously, is referring to the supreme command in that sentence as well (as opposed to some new and unnamed authority) , but it is historically inconceivable that any other authority could hypothetically have done so. Tomasevich's text is clear in its description, and anyway, one needs only read it to find several more instances of his direct involvement (for example his other "directive"). I do hope the discussion has grown past playing such word games. Simply "moving on" and ignoring the source that does not fit the preconceived narrative revives some unpleasant memories.

As for M's Instructions directive, which is almost certainly authentic if the forgery claim is unsupported by evidence and originates with Karchmar, they constitute a criminal order and link Mihailovic directly, not only with the Sanjak and eastern Bosnia massacres, but also with Chetnik ethnic cleansing in general. It is both the policy of the Chetnik movement, instituted by its commander, and local "vendettas" we can thank for the killings and mass terror. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Resuming discussion on collaboration

I believe that there is some agreement on how to address the November 11 meeting. What are other issues that participants would like to address regarding collaboration? Would it be possible to generate a list of subtopics to address? Sunray (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of issues I think we'll need to address:

-To what degree M. was in control of various units. For example, M. attempted to subordinate Pecanac's units in mid 1941, but Pecanac (who did collaborate with the Italians Germans) ignored this attempt. Likewise, Raitic (who collaborated with the Partisans) was a subordinate of M. but largely ignored M's orders.

-How we used the words "collaborate", "collaborator" and "collaboration". in common usage, collaborate has a negative connotation in a military context ("X collaborated with the enemy), but a positive connection in a work setting (Our work is done in collaboration with the University of Chicago). Also, we'll need to be consistent, since there are multiple sides in the conflicts during this period.

Also, as a procedural note, I'll only post once more here today since I went over yesterday. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Pećanac, who was a leader of his own very small faction (the Pećanac Chetniks), should not under any circumstances be confused with officers of the Mihailović Chetniks (the Chetniks). Pećanac was never part of the same movement as Mihailović, and really has little or nothing to do with the subject of Mihailović's collaboration. I am a little confused, though, I did not explore the matter specifically but to my knowledge Pećanac did not collaborate with the Italians, but rather with the Nedić government and the German Military Administration in Serbia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• The only question we should concern ourselves with is whether sources use such terms in the specific context we are writing about.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right about Pacanac, I've struck that, and I've had my coffee now. I'm not only concerned with this article, but also the article on the Chetniks. That said, the degree of control that M. had over the various Chetnik groups is important to the question of collaboration. For example, M.'s troops in December attached themselves to Nedic's legalized Chetniks, but it is not clear (to me anyway) what role M played in that, see Milazzo, p 40. In regard to the wording, you might take a look at Milazzo, pp. 19-22, 40-41. In regard to who "the" Chetniks were, Mihailovic wasn't the first to adopt the moniker in WWII, and coined the Ravna Gora Movement to distance himself from Pecanac, who was the leader of the Chetnik movement at the beginning of the war, see Roberts, pp.21. If you wish to make a point about the use of a particular word, please bring sources to support your point. BTW, see Milazzo, p.19, who says Pećanac had about 3000 men, roughly the same number as M. did at Ravna Gora.--Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Political map of WWII Yugoslavia

File:Etnicka mapa SFRJ 1981.jpg

Ethnic map of Yugoslavia from 1981. The map is roughly, I emphasize, roughly valid for the WWII period. The areas in blue were populated by Serbs and Montenegrins ("Crna Gora" is Montenegro) who were generally regarded before 1945 as not seperate from Serbs.
Note the western blue area in Bosnia and Croatia, and its near-complete separation from the Serbian heartland. --DIREKTOR

Since Mihailović's direct control over various segments of his movement varied significantly, both with regard to the specific segment and to the period involved, you've touched on a very difficult subject. However, it must be made clear at the outset that such questions of authority are raised only with regard to those segments of the movement which are detached physically from Mihailović's own central forces in southern Serbia and northern Montenegro. South-central Serbia and northern Montenegro was the Chetnik "heartland" and was under his direct command. Without presupposing a complete breakdown of the movement and its command structure, the activities of Chetnik units therein can be considered as being directed by the Supreme Command (unless sources say otherwise in some specific case of course).

An ethnic map of Yugoslavia may help us here, I'll lay out some basic information, if someone wants to challenge something I'll search out the quote.

• Re western Yugoslavia. Chetnik activity in western Yugoslavia (in regions such as the Krajina, Lika, northern Dalmatia, northern Bosnia, etc) was, generally speaking, firmly in the hands of regional commanders, often under the title "voivode", who had a significant degree of autonomy in their respective commands, but deferred to Mihailović as their commander-in-chief, and often approved major decisions with him through his personal representatives. Chetnik formations in north of the "Western Bubble", i.e. in northern Bosnia, were from the start in (surprisingly) amiable relations with the NDH, and as Tomasevich points out several times, thus indirectly with the Germans. In roughly the south of the "Western Bubble", south of the German-Italian demarcation line, reigned the MVAC. Now, we know from sources that Mihailović was "aware of and actively condoned" Chetnik collaboration with the Italians in the form of the MVAC, and even personally commanded (to disastrous effect) these troops during the major engagements of Fall Weiss. The only question here, is whether he was "aware of and condoned" Chetnik collaboration in the north with the Ustaše/Germans. (With regard to the latter case, I personally doubt very much that he was unaware of any such major long-lasting activities in his movement, and that he certainly did not like it, but did not oppose the arrangements out of necessity.)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In this biographical article about Mihailovic, it seems increasingly clear from the discussion that we should stick to information about actions that M. took or orders he is known to have given. It seems to me that beyond a general introduction on his relationship with the Chetniks, sections of the article should refer to him, not to the Chetniks. Does that make sense? Sunray (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for section on war crimes

Direktor has proposed a format for the section on Mihailović and war crimes:

1. A brief introduction (three or four sentences) into Chetnik cleansing and terror activities in general, based on Tomasevich's treatise, but also including a sentence based on his disclaimers.
2. A more detailed paragraph or two on the cleansing actions directly attributed to Mihailović himself. Including the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.).
3. A brief introduction (a couple of sentences) into the Moljević-based Chetnik ethnic policy, with an explanation on the Moljević-based "territorial proposals formulated by the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in the summer of 1941 and in September 1941".
4. A paragraph on the "Instructions". This should explain what the instructions entail, and should end with an attributed statement about the possibility of the document being a forgery.

How does this sound? Comments? Sunray (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd largely be duplicating ground found in the Chetniks article, which we should amend to reflect the questions of the instructions. And we lack, in regard to 2, as far as I can see, a source that directly attributes the various massacres to Mihailovic's actions in 1941. Plus we know that M.'s view was that his troops should not set policy, but only served in a military capacity. It is not that I think M. would not have issued such orders, and we know that he certainly later either condoned such actions or was not in a position to do anything about them, but I'm not sure that the sources we have show that in the period from late november 1941 through the early 1942 that M. was in any position to command or even influence anyone (unlike later in the conflict, during late 1942 and onward). According to Roberts, p. 53, M was in hiding and out of radio contact from 7 december to 6 january, and had to shut down again due to pressure from German troops until 22 march. I'm trying to work through multiple sources--thus far it seems more likely that Moljević's policy was the over arching one, but I'm far from done. In any case, points 1 and 3 seem more appropriate to the Chetniks article. My inclination would be to have a paragraph on 4, the instructions controversy, since that directly links to M., here, and link to the more general issues there. FWIW I did find this both disturbing and illuminating, see section 3.3. I think it sets the stage nicely, although I'm not sure it is not a primary source for our purposes. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I specifically emphasize that the context, which is absolutely necessary either way, will be briefly layed out. I certainly do not support any long, drawn-out description of Chetnik mass terror in general (which I am indeed saving for the Chetniks article). The section will certainly focus on M, no question. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to propose specific text for this? Also, awhile ago I asked whether it should be a new subsection or incorporated into an existing section. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it, but I'm waiting on Milazzo and Karchmar, and working through Trew right now --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose we wait until the open issue of the Instructions is settled. Also I'd like to have a go at the section myself and I'm currently floating about in a boat :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm about 2/3s through a first draft dealing with the cleansing policies and crimes against humanity. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Sunray (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the information from Tomasevich's treatise, esp. the cleansing actions of the Supreme Command in the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia. The indiscrepancy about Mihailović being out of radio contact is most likely due to the year involved, I suggest verifying if the sources are referring to the same Decemeber. If I remember correctly Mihailović was hiding in late 1941, after the failure of his Divci negotiations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am trying to write the most accurate version I can, and that's all I'm going to say about it. In regard to the dates, I've check multiple source more than once, and I just do not find much of anything about his activities or position between december 7 of 1942 and january of 1942, and then again not much until march. I would emphasis that my interest is just curiosity, as I cannot draw any conclusions myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy is our mutual goal. My point was that information from Tomasevich's treatise stands to improve our coverage significantly.

As for the period in question, is there an indiscrepancy in the sources with regard to Mihailović's whereabouts during that time? Or a simple lack of specific information? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm using all of the sources I have available from my own work and the sources in the relevant articles here on WP. I was going to answer your question about the timeline, but there's really no point, since it's just speculation and we can't use our interpretation of timelines without violating NOR. I will just point out that in the quotes I put up from Roberts, there seems to be a conflict in Djurisic's location and M.'s in the period between 7 december and 20 december. A curious matter, but not one we can use. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So the issue does not affect the events in a significant way? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and the Allies

I wrote Yugoslavia and the Allies to point out that the main reason for the Allies (specifically Churchill) switching support to Tito was that the Partisans were a more effective ally, based on the decrypts from Bletchley Park. The decrypts had evidence of "collaboration"; mainly with the Italians not the Germans. Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. Your assistance here on this article and then on the Chetniks article would be appreciated.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Churchill based his decision on German communiques aquired through the ULTRA intercepts, the same evidence Tomasevich uses very frequently. Through it, he could discern that Axis activity in the Balkans was centered on the Partisans. He had need of a (relatively) strong ally in the Balkans to facilitate his bid for a Balkans invasion. The article devotes much of its text to dubunking what are essentially Karchmar's speculative "theories" about communist SOE infiltration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much doubt that there was communist infiltration and some leftist bias. A lot of SOE were idealistic youngsters. The question is how effective it was and whether it was instrumental in the decision making process. Martin saw it as crucial but later evidence puts it (and Krugman) in perspective. The review on Karchmar says "Although he may be exaggerating the "left wing" character of the S.O.E., he is correct in suggesting that the S.O.E. had a hand in persuading the more conservative staid Foreign Office policy-makers to abandon Mihailovic. But the abandonment of Mihailovic cannot be interpreted as an instance where the Foreign Office caved in to the S.O.E. The final word in British policy formulation always lay with prime minister Winston Churchill and the Foreign Office." I don't read that review as "debunking" Karchmar or supporting a suggestion of "speculative theories". Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)