Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This archive is for administrative matters or general discussion that is not content related. Sunray (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Sunray, after we had all agreed on a set of terms, you unilaterally added more. Why? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. My addition was a summary. I added it to make the reading easier. It is similar in function to the addition at the top which clarifies the process for newcomers. Also, as you will recall, this was a summary made by you during the discussion. I then added the emphasis on concision, which was also part of the discussion. Sunray (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Sunray, you added a daily limit to the number of posts. That I did not agree to, and I would feel exceedingly silly if I were to wait for midnight to respond to someone's inquiry, for example. A limit on a number of posts does not really force a user to be concise - quite the opposite: it forces one to squeeze as much as he is allowed into the three meagre posts. And a swift exchange of numerous brief posts is in my experience a very productive way to discuss. Furthermore as this is a rule that would very directly slow down the discussion, I am fundamentally opposed to it. And I said so, I think, very clearly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that I did not change any of the wording of the actual terms. The first four have been posted for weeks and numbers 5-8 were added by Paul Siebert, with no objections. You agreed to the first four terms (including the limit on # of posts) on June 19 with this post. As far as the actual terms go, I am just the scribe. You may recall that I suggested an overall daily limit in number of words, but you opposed that strongly. Now, in order to apply the terms fairly, I must point out that you are over your limit for the day. So if you wish to discuss this further, you are welcome to continue on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I specifically stated I oppose the rule, and I still do, for the imo good reasons i listed above. I have no intention whatsoever of following it, under any circumstances. But let us not discuss this further. I will not have it said I am to blame for any additional delays. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you specifically agreed to these rules twice, here towards the bottom and here. I shall hold you to your statement on your talkpage that I shall not write another post on any subject apart from the dispute itself. as that is what the rules were endeavouring to achieve. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that this non-content-related discussion is now over and the discussion may proceed on the above topics. In future, if a participant has a non-content related issue to discuss, it might be preferable to discuss it first on my talk page. If I think it is something that other participants need to be involved in, I will bring it here in a special section. Any questions or comments? If not, I will archive this on July 5. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not alter quotations

Please only make changes to the quotations that make them more exactly reflect the source, not less. We should not be altering spellings, and I don't think we need wikilinks in the quotations. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling corrections, highlights, and wikilinks, make the quotations neither more nor less reflective of the source. But fine. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the quotations free of such changes keep us away from the question of whether anyone is pushing POV by cherry picking changes, and the former grad student in me doesn't like any alterations in sources. I'll need to take more care myself by reflecting spelling accurately, since the diacritics are part of my normal typing. I appreciate your understanding in this, thanks. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, fine. The current grad student in me agrees :). Let me just post a few notes here on the spelling and geography, if someone's figured this out ages ago please don't be insulted. I was trying to make sure the tricky distinction between a sanjak and the Sandžak (named after the former) is clearly understood (they are both pronounced in the same way: "sanjack"). Also of course, the letters "ć" and "č", frequently found at the end of Yugoslav names, are pronounced "ch" (as in Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky). The letter "đ" and the combination of letters "dž" are pronounced "j" as in, well, "sanjack". The letter "ž" is pronounced "zh" and the letter "š" is pronounced "sh". Our hero here, for example, is "Drazha Michailovich", while "Tomasevich" is badly anglicized from "Tomašević" (it should be "Tomashevich", but I suppose the man might've preferred it in the more leggible form).

Basically add an "h" after the end of an accented letter and you won't go wrong :). I know from experience Anglosaxons may well find Chinese easier than Serbo-Croatian. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Template Collaborationism in Yugoslavia

Are we in agreement that we should not use the facile label "collaborator" to describe Mihailovic? If we are, I will remove Mihailovic from the "collaborators" and remove the template from this article. BoDu (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions are not over here. Please refrain from making any controversial edits until we've finally finished with this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is directly related to this article. Do you agree that we should not use the facile label "collaborator" to describe Mihailovic? Yes or no? BoDu (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BoDu, the general consensus here is to try and agree the content of the article first on these controversial issues before tackling the lead. Meanwhile, participants, including DIREKTOR have agreed to some basic rules for conducting discussion here. Please have a look at the top of the page. Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I am not tackling the lead, but the template. BoDu (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Same argument applies. We can include the issue when we discuss collaboration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Having this template implies that the issue is not controversial. Better option is to remove it, and only after we discuss collaboration, maybe return it. BoDu (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

BoDu please don't make edits which you know are not agreed, without consensus. A lot of people are putting a lot of work into this and have done over a long period. There is nothing here that can't await proper discussion and consensus. If you can just remove anything you don't like, why can't everyone else? Should you decide to edit the template itself, best be aware of WP:ARBMAC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's off topic, but why you need images of Tito, Đujić and Churchill in article?--Wustenfuchs 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I beleave the template should not be about collaborationism, but about the intervenients in Yugoslavia during WWII. It would basically be the same template but adding the Partisans. That would be NPOV and would resolve the polemic issue of having, or not, not nazi resistance movements included as collaborators, as that was highly missinforming as the way it was until now. The template should have all intervenients listed without labeling them as "black or white"... The other solution is simply to delete the template and merge it into Yugoslavia in WWII. Best regrads to all. FkpCascais (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Best discuss this on the template talkpage. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that at least here we could have a easy decition that would spare us from painfull longoing round-and-around discussions... FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it was an easy decision.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, indeed, not easy at all. Thanks for the suggestion, Fkp, I think that we could come back to this as it does seem relevant to the mediation. As Fainites has pointed out, our focus has to be with the article right now. Once we have figured out how to deal with the issue of "collaboration" (discussion now in progress) we could that a look at the template. Sunray (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But, aren´t we being slightly pesimistic at start? We already had discussions on this before, and the arguments infavour of the template can be resumed to: "Chetniks collborated, they must be included", even if that arguments ignores the fact that the way the template was done completely fails to point out any differences and equals Chetniks to all other "real" collaborators... I supose the template really asks for being bold and making a simple antagonist but trouth template that would be named: "Resistance in Yugoslavia", and would list Partisans and Chetniks"... Instead of favouring those two extremes, wouldn´t be much more logical to simplify all to one template having them all dislabeled? After all, the discussion would be basically the repetition of the infobox discussion from Yugoslav Front, cause it is basically about the same. Would I be allowed to have the initiative to ask if anyone oposes my proposal of making one "dislabeled" template, and expresses its reasons. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, your proposal is NPOV, so go for it. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

After analising the options, the one that I find as more adequate in my view would be to merge the template into the other one we have: Template:Campaignbox Yugofront. That template is the one which includes all main aspects of the conflict so, if there is no oposition, this is what I am "officially" proposing. FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Lets leave this for now its a marginal issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasons? I am asking everyone to replace the "POV" template found on the DM article by the one I am proposing to merge it to, which very much includes DM. Replacing one POV template by one NPOV would certainly be appropriate, having the collaborationism template alone is all but logical... You can discuss your reasons direktor later, when you find time for this "marginal issue", as you name it. FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's marginal in the sense of "unimportant". Just marginal in the sense of the work currently being undertaken in respect of this article (and the Chetniks article). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime I created a template dedicated to resistance movements, so I hope I contributed to archive some "templates balance". Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see rule 4 at the top of the page. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, apologies Nuujinn, I only wanted to remove unnecessary parts of my comment because they were a bit superfluos and when I read it today I noteced that it could trigger a discussion of the kind "what I said and you said, but I meant..." which would not be productive for the process. As no one responded afterwords I hoped that it wouldn´t make much difference, as what really matters is what is left. I am trying to be as concised and focused as possible, and in future instead of shortening my comments afterwords I will be more focused at time of editing. Apologies and thank you for the note. FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, but I would ask in the future that you strike comments you regret rather than deleting them later, I'm sure we all say things we wish to pull back, but one advantage I see to the rules is that they encourage us to think about what we are going to say before we say it. Glad to have you back, --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section for Mihailovic article

We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:

• Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
• Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Those interested may indicate which proposal they prefer here. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Karchmar

I've added a bunch of quotes relative to the issues on the table. The footnotes in his work are copious, and the text voluminous at close to 1000 pages, but I have included the note to the statement regarding the forgery of the instructions for the sake of completeness. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Most interesting. He appears to have a very readable style from those bits doesn't he. The bit for p 386 needs a serious copy-edit though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to make another pass, the OCR program I have doesn't do well with diacritics, I'll go through it again. He's very detailed, but then at close to 1000 pages he's got the room to be. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent quotations (moved here from my talkpage)

Frankly Fainites, I don't see the point of the recent quotes you added. Radical nationalist propaganda in Croatia is as bad, if not worse, than the one in Serbia. Its all the same trash, really. Croats demonize the Chetniks by emphasizing their collaboration, trying to depict the Chetniks as equivalent to the Ustaše, which is nonsense. Serbian propaganda does not really need to additionally demonize the Ustaše, as they were really quite horrible in fact, but instead whitewashes over any collaboration and atrocities of the Chetniks and depicts them as heroes. I want to make it perfectly clear that I myself am utterly disgusted by the nationalist nonsense in my own country, and under no circumstances do I, or any other sensible Croat, consider the Chetniks to have been equivalent

I hope you see the difference: the Croats really have no choice but to reject the Ustaše, as they were fascists with an open policy of collaboration and genocide against the Serbs that lived within their borders - thus the Ustaše are and have been denounced by all Croatian scholars and political parties since 1945. Chetniks, however, have seen a rehabilitation in their status. The Chetniks used to be denounced by all Serbian scholars and politicians up until Slobodan Milošević came to power in the late 1980s. At present the largest single political party in Serbia, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), openly supports the Chetniks, whitewashes over any collaboration (often depicting it as supposedly having been committed by the Pećanac Chetniks), and its Party Leader publicly considers himself a Chetnik "Voivoda". Due to the fact that the Chetnik collaboration and war crimes are lesser in scale than those of the Ustaše, Serbia has rehabilitated its WWII ultranationalist movement, while Croatia has not (or could not have).

P.S. The second quote from Balkan holocausts? is very strange: "Even though there is clear indisputable evidence of Cetnik massacres of Croats and Moslems throughout the NDH, there was no concrete proof that the Cetniks aimed to exterminate the entire Croatian nation - nor would they have had the means to do so." This is clearly an erroneous assumption on the part of the author: noone ever said they wanted to exterminate whole nations. Even if Mihailović's instructions are an accurate description of the Chetniks goals, they do not entail the "exterminate the entire Croatian nation" - merely their removal out of the areas they considered Greater Serbia. The same is true with the Ustaše: neither movement ever suggested their goal is to exterminate the entire Serbian or Croatian nations. Refuting that seems to be redundant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rule 5! This should be on the talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I just thought it was a useful roundup of revisionist history - with particular reference to the idea that the Chetniks had an evil plan to create Greater Serbia all along with WWII as just a handy interlude, and the place of the "Instructions" within that. I agree the latter quote appears rather carelessly worded. I assumed he meant exterminate a nation as a nation which doesn't mean kill everyone in it. Mind you - I haven't personally seen all the propaganda he is referring to so maybe people who argue that the Germans and Italians were funding Chetniks to commit genocide against Croats within the NDH (!?!) would have no trouble believing they intended to exterminate everyone.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading what you wrote again - I seem to recall Tudjman and his lot putting up a sterling argument that the Ustasa were misunderstood patriots defending their country against fascists and genocidal Serbs. Not that it's relevent for this article but the book makes it pretty clear that revisionist history was a two way street.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tuđman, in his characteristic pompous style, has stated that the "NDH represented an embodiment of the age-old aspirations of the Croatian people for their own state", and thats about as close as he came to openly supporting the Ustaše. I assure you, while Ustaše crimes have been downplayed by the right wing of Tuđman's (still ruling) HDZ party, the HDZ has always (sometimes more sometimes less cynically) denounced the Ustaše. Tuđman himself fought in the Partisans, was a life-long member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and served as a general in the Yugoslav People's Army, and the current leader of the actual right wing of the HDZ (Andrija Herbrang Jr.) is a Jew who's family was murdered by the Ustaše. The crucial difference between the Ustaše and the Chetniks, you see, is that the Ustaše were quite thorough fascists and brutal ones at that - they can never be supported, at least openly. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a party that professed support for a genocidal fascist movement would ever be admitted into the European People's Party. To my knowledge, the only Croatian party that actually supports the rehabilitation of the Ustaše, the Croatian Pure Party of Rights is a splinter (with no parliamentary representation), of a marginal party on the edges of Croatian politics (the Croatian Party of Rights).

Revisionism, to be sure, was and is most certainly present in Croatia even today - that is absolutely true. To put it in a sentence, its mostly focused on (1) downplaying the massive Croatian contribution to the Partisans, (2) emphasizing alleged or real Partisan and Chetnik crimes against Croats, and (3) depicting the two movements as sort of "Serbian allies" against Croats (based on the huge defections of Chetniks to the Partisans in 1945), all the while severely downplaying any crimes of the NDH - but not supporting the Ustaše. It is indeed a fine point on which they dance ("they were evil, but not as much as the Serbs say!"). Its all mostly centred on the Bleiburg massacre.

It must be pointed out, as a side note, that it is certainly not in the interests of Croatian nationalist revisionism to depict Chetniks as collaborators, and that aspect is quietly overlooked. Indeed, that would seems as though the "pure Croats" were actually close to being actually allied with the Chetniks, unthinkable! - but it was the case in northern Bosnia. And its mostly to spite the Croatian nationalists that I added this little sweet bit to the Independent State of Croatia article ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you really just say that your primary motivation to add some particular material to the NDH article was spite? I honestly cannot believe you would say that, even as a joke. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me yes, its far to gruesome for a joke. I shudder to think what impact that might've had on an unbalanced mind had it not been shielded by my skilfully constructed veneer of comedy..

I wonder if our two venerable admins will respond to this particular ad hominem of yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope they do. If either of them think I was out of line, I'll be happy to apologize and strike the question and comment. I readily admit you're stretching my ability to assume good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh likewise, have no doubt. E.g. your post up there the only apparent purpose of which seems to have been deliberate provocation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I must admit I was a bit taken aback when I saw it (Direktor's remark) but given that it was in the context of a slightly off topic, friendly discussion I couldn't think of a suitable response off hand. I don't see anything unwarranted in Nuujinns response though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes nothing unwarranted in trying to turn a joke of mine against me. I should apologize myself then? I'm sorry Fainites, for taking you aback, as it were, and I'm sorry Nuujinn, for shocking you so profoundly. It need not be said that the addition of that section was a an entry of related and accurate information, entered as part of the expansion of the article by the addition of sections detailing the relations of the NDH with other factions in Yugoslavia. With the "Relations with the Partisans" section there, I simply added the "Relations with the Chetniks" section. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sometimes it's hard to be a fascist

Giving all your love to just one man

You'll have bad times

And he'll have good times..." with apologies to T. Wynette.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, since it bothers you so, I struck the my comment, please accept my apologies. Now, will you strike the recent personal attacks you made against me and apologize for those? Fainites, I can hear Tammy now.... --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That one sounds familiar Fainites, where did you say it from?

@Nuujinn, what bothers me is that it bothers you. It was just a joke, am I seriously going to have to start screeing my posts for anything that might conceivably be turned against me? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you what to do, or what I think about your actions--if you want my opinion, just ask, but otherwise I don't think it would be productive. But I will point out that Sunray did ask you to strike the one comment, and I believe you did not answer Fainites's question about the other. And that's all I have to say about it for the time being unless you wish for me to elaborate further. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

[1] The iconic worst of the "he beats the crap out of me .... but I love him" school of female Country and Western.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald describes two main forms of Croatian revisionist propaganda in this area. One emanating largely from the Croatian Diaspora which was overtly pro-Ustasa. The other which sought to play down the NDH and the support for it during WWII, portraying it as a reaction to Serbian genocidal aims. Tudjman tried to satisfy both. His regime was financially obligated to Diaspora Croats so he needed vindicate wartime Croatia and deny Ustasa atrocities. He also wanted to please Western Governments who were watching like hawks for revisionism. The solution to this lay in downplaying Croat support for the NDH whilst avoiding being seen as pro-Nazi. He made a number ofststaements designed to place Pavelic and Mihailovic on a parallel. Both sides of course were portraying themselves as victims of "holocausts" in WWII and of genocide in the 1990s. So there was a certainly a strand of revisionism that had an interest in portraying the Chetniks as as bad or worse than the Ustasa. Part-time collaborators are portrayed as being as bad as Nazi's and '....Cetnik unofficial collaboration was somehow worse than the than the official highly publicised Ustasa variety'.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald is accurate once again, but if that's what he's saying he's not being entirely accurate. Tuđman did not "deny" Ustaše atrocities, that would be quite a stupid and futile gesture, he and his regime merely downplayed the victim numbers. Severely. From several hundreds of thousands to some 60,000. Tuđman did have some sort of communist military "degree" in history, and he liked to write on the subject. (Of course, the Serbs for their part inflated the numbers all the way to 700,000.)

As for the Croatian "diaspora", don't get me started on them. They all have the vote you know, and their voting stations all across the world and in neighbouring Herzegovina are very difficult to regulate, hence they are and were the perfect tool for giving oneself an "edge" in any election (e.g. vote once in Herzegovina, vote again across the border in Croatia). They constituted (and do still constitute) the right wing of the ruling HDZ. In short, the right wing of the HDZ, founded in the Ustaše diaspora, certainly did want to rehabilitate the Ustaše, but because of the international community, and possibly because Tuđman (who was a sort of closet Tito fan) did not allow it, they simpy could not do this. As I said, the "problem" is and was that the Ustaše were fascists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I was paraphrasing quite a lot, but there was a strand of revisionism that was very keen indeed on portraying Cetniks as straightforward collaborators.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, just a tiny little bit, to destroy any positive aspects a Croat might perceive in their nationalist devotion, but not enough to depict them as "collaborators" as such. As I said, that would imply the Ustaše and Chetniks were on the same side. The irony is that very often they were, as the Partisans threatened to defeat them both. In the end, elements of the Chetnik movement were marching right alongside the Ustaše in the columns of the retreat towards Bleiburg. The Bleiburg massacre is the very epicentre of Croatian nationalist propaganda - yet nowhere around here will you find mention that Chetniks were there as well marching with NDH forces. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No. MacDonald is saying the ones portraying the Cetniks as evil nazi collaborators are the ones portraying the Croats/NDH as reactive defenders of Croatia against the evil Nazi collaborators. Tudjman was trying to reconcile the irreconcilable and be all things to all men.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to WWII or the Yugoslav Wars? If you mean the HDZ is saying Nazi collaborators were protecting Croatia against Nazi collaborators, well, all I can say is I never heard that one, and even by propaganda standards it just makes no sense. The ones portraying the Chetniks as collaborators were the communists, the HDZ only to a limited extent so far as it does not conflict with their own propaganda. One can't very well both support the NDH and berate Nazi collaborators. And while there was some marginal rehabilitation, mostly of the Croatian Home Guard, the Ustaše could not and were not supported by any major party or scholarly authority in Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald is dealing with rewriting history for propaganda purposes - including WWII. There were different versions of revisionist history at different times. I'll look again but there is the "you were just as bad as us" approach, the "you were worse than us" approach and the "we only did what we did because you forced us into it" approach. It doesn't have to make sense Isuppose. Just appeal to enough of the people enough of the time. But of course - the Cetniks weren't proper Nazi's. They were just pretending to be so they could pursue their evil genocidal aims against the Croats.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic allegiance with the Axis 1944-45?

I think that it is wrong to say that Mihailovic allegiance in 1944-45 was to Axis. In that year allies still had missions at his headquarters, and left him not because of cooperations with the Germans but because of change of allied politics and leaving Chetniks without supplies in favor of Partisans. It is beyond doubt that some Chetniks (not in command od Mihailovic) spend entire war fighting allongside with Germans and collaboration of some units with Italians was very often. Based on what fact this was written? I have changed that, i'm new here so if that is wrong to do before some discussion please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitemax (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, the cycle we like is WP:BRD. I did revert you, but it is not wrong to be bold, esp. if you bring it up on the article's talk page. Take a close look at the "Allied support shifts" section, we do have some refs support the time range, but 1945 is more iffy. We can definitely talk about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Also i think that his allegiance to Kingdom of Serbia (later SHS, than Yugoslavia) should start when he joined the Serbian army, 1910 i think. And if allegiance part is only for WW2, in 1942. he became a member of Slobodan Jovanović goverment as a secretary of defence, but his rebellion started in 1941, may 11th. And the goverment of Dušan Simović recognized him as comander of free forces in Yugoslavia in october of 1941. I think that should be changed. Infinitemax (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitemax (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to sources supporting these particular dates? As you can see, the article is subject to formal mediation (Sunray is the mediator if you have questions), and we've got a voluntary set of rules up top. I think you have a point about the starting point of his resistance activities, such as they are, I'll take a look tonight, but we really need sources for everything. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Begining of Chetniks rebellion is may 11th 1941. On that day decision was made that guerilla warfare should be started. (B. Petranovic, Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu (Serbia In Second World War), Beograd 1991, 169) First mayor victory was Battle of Loznica (1941). On november 15th Dusan Simovic promoted than colonel to a Comander of all Yugoslav armed forces in Yugoslavia. (Petranovic, 236). Mihailovic become secretary of defence in the exile goverment in London in january 1942. (Petranovic, 234) The book is reliable, Petranovic was a university professor and it was written after a decades of research on topics of WW2.Infinitemax (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a timely discussion. We do need to focus, in this article, on Mihailovic, rather than, more generally, on the Chetniks. The topic outstanding in the discussion we have been having is "collaboration" by Mihailovic. Infinitemax has, correctly, pointed out that the article is lacking in this area (see next section). Sunray (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011

Issues with the current lede of this article

My first point is that the use of the descriptor 'patriot' in the current lede is unsourced opinion and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies at a minimum, from a quality source given the disputed nature of this article. I consider a more appropriate description would be 'nationalist' and/or 'royalist', but happy to discuss. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is heavily slanted, to be sure. By omission mostly, but also in actively in a few places. For the record, your proposal seems fine to me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist certailnly, nationalist, I am not so sure. He, as most of Serbs in that period, had a mix of Yugoslavianism and Serbian nationalism, and in eyes of most Serbs, the two were the same, as Yugoslavia was the new country in which Serbia had a main role, although in that period there was also a portion of population among Serbs that oposed Yugoslavia and advocated for a Greater Serbia instead, these ones being the real nationalists, and Mihailivic, as I know, never defended the end of Yugoslavia, as the real nationalists did (although he did put an option of giving up on Yugoslavia and focusing more on Serb habitated areas, but that was by the end of the war when the ethnic tensions were already high). So saying "nationalist" or a person who fought for keeping the country together and named his movement "Yugoslav" sounds a bit strange. FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to royalist, that's pretty easily supported by the sources. Peacemaker's comment regarding WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV seemed applicable. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can live with 'royalist', although I don't necessarily agree with your characterisation of what constitutes a 'real' nationalist, or that Mihaliovic wasn't one for that matter. Patriot just jumpedout at me. I'm concentrating on the Chetniks article at present, but will occasionally pop up here to discuss possible edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Draza Mihailovic was a Serbian nationalist. That would probably be the easiest assertion in the world to source. FkpCascais, you are wrong on most counts, and do not seem to possess a grasp of the complexities of Yugoslav politics in the Interbellum (e.g. the continuous conflict between the Serbian nationalists and the Yugoslav(ist) unitarianists). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, don´t make personal attacks against me just because I don´t share your POV. Btw, I was often told that I have quite a complete and objective understanding of regional history, but you wan´t recognised that (even if you made accasionaly in the past statements of apreaciation towards me, but it had obviously to do with a few times we agreed on something). My major problem is that I tend to resume all knolledge in my own words but to be honest, I am rarely wrong. For exemple, I can proudly say that I made entire sections in very disputed articles (luckily you have no interess in them...) and the versions are still there with both sides admiting my version is objective.

With regard to Mihailovic, I must admit that after looking things closer I must say that patriot is quite a precise description. He was indeed very patriotic. But that is not the same as nationalist, and, what kind of nationalist? Serbian nationalist? His priority was to defend Karadjordjevic dynasty ruled Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and even during the most difficult periods of the WWII he never gave up on Yugoslavia (the only thing that you could eventually find is that he recognised that some non-Serb nationalities were not willing to keep as part of Yugoslavia, but even then he never switched to a purely Serbian ideology). So we could eventually atribute him the adjective of Yugoslav nationalist, but anyway the adjective royalist in that period already means exactly that. Any possible tendency of some authors to atribute him the adjective nationalist is just exagerated and possibly influenced by the tendency many nationalities with disputes with Serbs have to describe any Serbian patriot inmediately as nationalist (with the purpously negative connotation, of course). I will go even further, by saying that we could easily compare Mihailovic Chetniks attitude with other nations that fought in wars. Would you descibe Donald Rumsfeld as American nationalist for exemple? George Bush? They stood up for their country as well and fought against the enemies... Or is it really patriot a more precise description?

To resume myself, he was absolutely wihout question a Royalist (Monarchist) and that adjective in this context already means that he defended the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. But being a Serbian nationalist in that period meant to advocate for a replacement of Yugoslavia by Greater Serbia and he in fact never gave up on Yugoslavia.

Btw direktor, the Serbian Radical Party (known as such during the Kingdom of Serbia and named People's Radical Party for the Yugoslav period) was a conservative party. I hope you know that the name "Radical" has nothing to do with nationalism, or "radical nationalism" as you may want to sugest for the less informed. Although it might have had patriotic (~nationalist) connotation because it was always found on the right side of the political spectrum (center-right/right), it was never extreme-right as the current SRP is after the 1990s. I beleave you are mixing the two, just as usually people in Croatia mix WWII Chetniks with the ones from 1990s... Anyway, Mihailovic has nothing to do with Radical Party, or any nationalistic parties. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, of course you are fully entitled to your personal opinion regarding Mihailovic's patriotism. It may just be the way you have expressed yourself in your post above, but your confidence in your impeccable and objective knowledge of a topic as hotly disputed as this one is breathtaking! Patriot is not a 'more precise description' UNLESS you can provide a quality source for it (and not your opinion, regardless of how many people have told you of their opinion of your knowledge of the topic)! Then we will discuss that source and others and come up with an agreed wording if we can. Until then I consider it should remain out of this article as a descriptor of Mihailovic. I am happy with the descriptor 'royalist' for now, as I observed to Nuujiin, but may want to come back to the question of 'nationalist' later. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, please ignore that post of mine, it is directed to direktor and it is a result of years long discussions with him... Just as remark, I never said that my "knolledge was impecable", just that I usually have an objective aproach but, please ignore that as well. I am OK with any WP:UNDUE treatment of sources. If most scholars agree on something, that is definitelly sourced then. It is just that by now I am not so sure if all agree about Mihailovic being a nationalist, but we´ll analise that and reach a conclusion. Notece that beside the article being composed of sourced info, it also has to make sense. In my view the facts that his movement was named "Yugoslav", that he defended all the time the royal family in Exile (which had never gave up on Yugoslavia at no time) and that he never had an exclusive pro-Serb agenda (as real nationalists did) are facts to weight in the decition of describing him as nationalist, in case of not having a consensus on this issue. All the facts I mention are found in the article and well sourced, so I supose I don´t need to bring them here, but I will try to see how authors describe him... FkpCascais (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, we've been discussing various aspects of this nonsense for years now, and I cannot remember the last time you backed anything you said with sources. You just never ever look for sources, read the sources, or post the sources. You just talk about your feelings. Here is the our quotations page [2]. Of all those many sources and numerous quotes, you added none whatsoever. In fact, when source-based discussion takes place, you are almost always nowhere to be found. This has to be the thirtieth time you were told to back up your claims with sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I presented my sources at mediation, and Nuujinn used parts which were usefull. Also, I know the sources found on the several versions and I am OK by now. You are the one having problems with your sources... Btw, what source you are asking me for right now? FkpCascais (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, just please spare us your opinions and feelings - back up ALL your claims with sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don´t escape from the discussion now. What I am saying is that I beleave you don´t have a consensus among scholars to descrbe him as nationalist, and I mention facts (exemple, do you really want a source saying his movement was named Yugoslav?) that simply contradicts such conclusion. FkpCascais (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not "escaping" anything. I want you to stop making claims (just like the one above) without a metric ton of links and quotes in their wake. That's the whole point I am making, and the main subject of this discourse. So again: spare us your opinions and feelings and back up ALL your claims with sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and have read, in many cases, more than once, the mediation on this article and two or more years of discussion that have preceded this point, however, it is really not acceptable in this context to say 'I brought all these sources up in mediation'. Given the 6 or more pages of largely impenetrable nonsense that are in archives, If there is a particular fact in issue, bring the sources here, now. There really is no excuse for this. I already have 19 pages of quotes that I have transcribed for use in this article and the Chetniks article. No-one in this discussion should be short on quotes to support their perspective of any aspect of this discussion, and there is no excuse for not bringing them and placing them on the table... Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are correct Peacemaker67. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Source it or delete it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotations and sources subpage

Discussion on this page should refer to specific sources. To streamline the discussion here, quotations/sources have been added to a subpage. Editors are encouraged to add pertinent quotations (verbatim, please) and provide a link to specific quotes referred to in the discussion. Here's the subpage:

• Talk:Draža Mihailović/quotations/

One of the issues I've been frustrated with in this article is the complete lack of English translations of the relevant excerpts of Buisson (this is English Wikipedia after all). Not being fluent in French myself, I find it incredible that he could be relied upon for so much information on DM. There is no shortage of texts in English about DM. I have machine translated a review in French: http://www.parutions.com/pages/1-4-84-1057.html which describes Buisson's book as a 'hagiography'.

This is sufficient for me to be concerned that we who do not read French are being 'sold a pup'. I have already asked this elsewhere, but has anyone got a copy of this book in English? Otherwise, a lot more will need to be done in terms of providing quotes on the quotes page to convince me he is a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

This is the final topic of our discussion. There is has been some discussion of it on this page (see Archive 5). I suggest we re-visit that, pull out the main themes and see if we can finalize some text for the article. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sunray: Is this topic going to go ahead? How does this work? The history page seems to show some recent edits, but they are on other sections. IWTH (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a group of editors discussing various topics, in connection with a mediation case. The mediation was closed and the discussion ended. Sunray (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As a participant in those former discussions, if I am allowed to say, we still could improve the Chetniks article, Yugoslav Front article and infobox, Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism... FkpCascais (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw there was a mediation some time ago, but I thought that had ended some time ago. You posted a note on 1 September saying there is some discussion, and that's the last thing posted here until my question yesterday. Did something happen since 1 September? Also, what are the rules for the page now? Back to BRE? IWTH (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The last stage of the mediation was to open the discussion on this page. There was extensive discussion of the article here, involving mediation participants and other editors, from June until the end of August. The mediation was formally closed on September 3, 2011. The talk page continues to be the place for discussions about the article. I agree with FkpCascais that there are some related issues that need attention. Sunray (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Related issues and this article, which at this time almost completely ignores war crimes committed by this person, as well as his (well-documented) involvement in the collaboration of the movement he headed with Italy, Germany, and with the puppet regimes established by the Axis in WWII occupied Yugoslavia. In other words, it is a travesty as far as WP:NPOV is concerned. No doubt the group of users that achieved this state of affairs would like to do the same in other articles? I'm particularly impressed by how the article uses the term "ethnic conflict" as a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing" for a section that discusses the latter. Whats impressive is that the words look and sound so similar, in fact I'm reasonably sure Mihailovic himself could not have invented a better propaganda term so well tailored for the English language. The ethnic cleansing issue, in spite of Sunray's efforts to paint a different picture, has not been resolved by any means.

Until there is real interest among neutral users, that is to say among users that do not belong to this or that group from this issue, these subjects will not be covered objectively. At present, the article's content is non-consensus dribble that ignores many sources and sourced facts, and concocted exclusively by one side of the argument (that of users Sunray and FkpCascais), that has managed to bully the ever-decreasing opposition out of the way by virtue of the fact that two of its "members" are admins. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read five archive talk pages of invective for this article. I don't see the need for a sixth in the same vein. I thought the article under-emphasized Mihailovic's actions against the Axis in the critical time of late 1943, when the British were making up their minds about switching support to the Partisans.

Sunray: So what are the rules now that mediation is over? Is this back to the BRD cycle? (I incorrectly said "BRE" above.) And I'm aware of the Chetniks and Yugoslav Front pages as well; I'll be getting up to speed on them. IWTH (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic's actions against the Axis in 1943? :) Perhaps they are under-emphasized, but that is because they do not exist or are "under-emphasized" in scope. Setting aside the post-1990s "folklore", I certainly have not heard of any such "actions" beyond the level of sabotage or negligible minor raids. In 1943 Draza Mihailovic was too busy commanding his forces in joint operations with the Axis (cca. 15,000 men, Fall Weiss, March 1943). Though you will certainly notice that aspect of his activities has been "under-emphasized" in the article. I also do not see what difference it should make to any Wikipedian if there are six or fifteen archive pages in teh same vein if the issue is still unresolved and the serious breach of neutrality still exists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant in the second half of 1943, after Weiss and Schwartz. For starters we can look at:

1) Sabotage against the Axis, for example: "[A]fter the invasion of Sicily Chetnik headquarters in Serbia began calling for acts of sabotage against specific targets." (Milazzo p.156)

2) Tomasevic says that Mihailovic's forces failed to bring the Venezia division "under their control" (p. 360). This is contradicted by other sources: "Bailey had to dissuade the Mihailovic forces from disarming the Italians...." (Williams p. 175)

3) The "ultimatum": The original message to Mihailovic "said very explicitly, 'Your agreement requested by 29 December.' " (Martin, Web of Disinformation, p. 202). Agreement was requested by Dec 29, not action.

I see there is a quotations page. I'll start adding some things there. Also, I just saw the Yugoslavia and the Allies page. It seems incomplete, so I'll probably add some things there as well. IWTH (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

By "actions against the Axis" I understood you meant "military actions", not saying bad words or thinking hostile thoughts :). 1) Minor acts of sabotage by the Chetniks in Serbia did occur throughout the war, but I question their significance in what was a guerrilla war.

2) As for Mihailovic "taking control" of the Venezia division, there must be some kind of mix-up, since the Partisans actually that came to "control" the Venezia division. When Italy capitulated in late 1943 the Italian formations along the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic were disarmed by the Partisans, while the 19 Infantry Division Venezia (or at least much of its elements) actually defected to the Partisans as the "Garibaldi Division" or "the Garibaldi Red". I never heard of Chetniks disarming an Italian division, much less gaining control over one. On the other hand, I have heard of Italian divisions gaining control of Chetniks.. :)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I've been poking at a short section treating collaboration issues directly. My suggestion is we work together on a draft of that on a subpage--if anyone wants to throw up one, please do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Working together"? :) Nuujinn, if look closely at your feats of compromise up to this date, you will note that when last anyone proposed a minor, one paragraph alteration to your own first draft, your admin friends threatened to block him for six months. Further you'll note that, since the two admins involved in this debate seem to trust/like you personally, the "resolution" of this issue appears to consist of you writing-up text, and them enforcing its inclusion into the article (by arguing in concert and declaring opposition to be "disruptive"). Indeed, this article is basically all Nuujinn right now isn't it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, if you have a problem with me or my actions, I suggest you take it elsewhere, this is not the appropriate venue to discussion editor conduct. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You seemed very comfortable discussing my conduct in this venue on numerous occasions. Where do you suggest I bring up these problems? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That's completely up to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely you must've had something in mind when you suggested a different venue? Or is emulating your talkpage commentaries the only option?

But seriously, as I said before, I have every intention to continue pointing out irregularities in the manner this article is being expanded by yourself. These are not comments or discussions about you personally, but about your edits and behavior directly relating to this article's content. This is common on Wikipedia, it happens all the time. I have pointed out that you (possibly due to participation in Sunray's mediation) take WP:NPA far too broadly, and that it is enough that a username be mentioned for you to cry "comment on content". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've said basically all I have to say about this, and will only add that I will indeed be taking WP:NPA very seriously in any discussions with you both in terms of the standards to which I will hold myself and to what I expect of you. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The only standards I am concerned with (and have consistently called upon for months) are those outlined carefully in WP:NPA. The same ones you and Sunray have been trying to place second to those personal standards of your own to which you are referring. Both in the mediation and here as well, on a plain article talkpage. What else is there to say? I did not turn the discussion in this direction. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Direktor: 1) Since this is an article on Mihailovic in particular, I would have thought it significant if he had given "a general order to his commanders throughout Yugoslavia to attack lines of communication and German troops" (Williams, p.176) even if that order had no effect. But sources say that there were effects: "There are also some half-dozen large-scale actions -- very large-scale by guerrilla standards -- where the enemy death toll ran from 200 to 300" (Martin, The Web of Disinformation, p. 123).

2) I also think there is a mix-up regarding the surrender of the Venezia division, but I think the mix-up is Tomasevic's. Yes, the Venezia largely ended up with the Partisans as the Garibaldi division. But before the Partisans got there, the Chetniks had subdued the Venezia. Sources differ: we have Williams quoted above with Bailey dissuading Mihailovic from disarming the Italians; and "the Chetniks accepted the surrender of the Venezia Division in Berane" (Roberts, p.145); and Pavlowitch (p.193) has a longer story with Bailey securing an agreement for the JVO to take over civil administration and the Venezia to give some weapons to the Chetniks. Even Tomasevic writes that the Venezia surrendered to the Chetniks. But when Tomasevic says that the Chetniks "failed to bring the division securely under their control," this is an oversimplification which makes Chetnik fighting strength seem weaker than it in fact was. The Chetniks were strong enough to disarm the Italians, according to the above sources.

Sunray: If we're going to be going through sources, this is quickly going to get to TL:DR territory. Since I'm new I thought I'd ask if there were any special post-mediation rules I should know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWTH (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we have special rules, but if I'm following you, I think the edits you're proposing seem fine. We've discussed Martin, he's not a reliable source really. Roberts also make the point that in regard to the Italians and Chetniks, neither group was subordinate to the other, and that the Chetniks often protected the Italians. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@IWTH

• 1) As I said, some sabotage occurred, and mentioning that he called for it is of course perfectly fine.
• 2) So let me get this straight. As far as I can tell from the sources, the 19th Venezia surrendered to the Chetniks (not "subjugated" or "was taken control of"), and then joined the Partisans. The only source that explains why this happened, says this was due to Chetnik "failure to bring the division securely under their control". Yo're saying this is an "oversimplification", but you didn't provide any sources that would agree with you or suggest the assertion is wrong somehow. I also have to say I don't see how the surrender of the Italian army counts as an "action by Mihailovic" in the first place.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn: Why is Martin considered unreliable? I looked through the talk archives for both the Draza Mihailovic and the Chetniks, and the only thing I see that would justify him being unreliable is a link on this page Talk:Chetniks/Archive_3, leading to a Foriegn Affairs review which calls Martin an advocate.

@Direktor: 1) According to Martin, it was a lot more than "some sabotage." But apparently Martin is not used (see my note to Nuujinn above)?

2) Williams explains what happened with the surrender of the Venezia. I have entered the relevant text in a new section on the quotations page. Williams's account contradicts Tomasevic's oversimplified "Lukacevic's troops failed to bring the division securely under their control."

--IWTH (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I'll say again as I've said on numerous occasions. There is no dispute on whether Mihailovic's movement did indeed conduct resistance activities, and I am of course perfectly fine with the article elaborating on that. That is not the subject of this debate, but rather the issue eloquently described in the title of the section.

2) The terms "over-simplification" and "contradiction" do not apply in any measure. "Lukacevic's troops" did indeed quite obviously "fail to bring the division securely under their control" - in the face of Dapčević's 2nd Proletarian (one of the Partisans' "elite" formations, rather famous locally in fact, commanded by a veteran of the Spanish Civil War). And once again, I do not see how the surrender of the 19th Venezia, or its defection arranged by Bailey, relate to Mihailovic and count as his "activity" against the Axis.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor

1) You're right, we're off topic. I was the one here who initially asked where to discuss actions against the Axis in 1943 because I didn't know where it was appropriate to do so. You then said you hadn't heard of anything "beyond the level of sabotage or negligible minor raids," so I gave my sources, you questioned them, etc., etc., so here we are. Apparently Martin is not an acceptable source?

2) I think Tomasevic's account is an oversimplification because it portrays the Venezia's surrender as a formality, as if Oxilia would surrender to the first force that showed up. I have now added Pavlowitch's account of the event (pp. 192-3) to Williams's on the quotations page. Pavlowitch crucially adds that Perhinek arrived before Bailey and started disarming the Italians. You're correct in that this is after the Italian armistice and thus Italy is no longer part of the Axis powers. However, the Venezia was still an occupying army until it surrendered and Oxilia wasn't willing to surrender to just anybody. Tomasevic's account ignores the fact that a military force was required to compel the Venezia to surrender and that the Chetniks did so. The fact that the Partisans were stronger and got the Venezia in the end does not change this.

More broadly, the surrender of the Venezia is relevant because it is not the only place where I think Tomasevic minimizes non-Partisan resistance to the Axis. As I noted above, Martin claims the Chetniks were relatively active in late 1943 (and if Martin is not an acceptable source then I'll find another). Also noted above is the question of the ultimatum of Dec 1943 and whether or not Mihailovic responded by the deadline. I think Tomasevic even minimizes the coup of March 1941, referring to the "assistance... of British representatives in Belgrade" (p. 43) and of the coup leaders never making "public reference to any part that the British services played in the coup" (p.45). Meanwhile, Williams calls the coup a "totally home-grown affair" (p. 32) and Pavlowitch says there was "no real British involvement in the coup" (p.16).

Just for the record, I didn't bring up actions against the Axis with the intention of derailing the discussion of collaboration, and I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. But it is important to the article as a whole.

--IWTH (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by your intent here.. you have not touched on any specific content changes. If you wish to generally challenge Tomasevich as a reliable source then please bring forth negative reviews from his peers, rather than your own evaluation. Thus far all I see is an author going into one subject in more detail than the other. As for the 1941 coup, I think you'll find many authors agree with Tomasevich (and vice versa) in the assertion that the United Kingdom was indeed very much involved in attempts to keep Yugoslavia out of the Tripartite Pact [3]. Money did certainly exchange hands, but the exact nature of the British involvement in the coup itself is a subject of some speculation. Generally speaking, if you believe that the author "minimizes non-Partisan resistance", I must assert my opinion that you have not read The Chetniks very carefully. It should be pointed out, in addition, that the author spent a decade of his life researching non-Partisan resistance specifically, and publishing what is, to my knowledge, the only notable work focusing primarily on non-Partisan resistance. One hardly gets the impression his goal was to "minimize" it by publishing what the The American Historical Review called "the most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia".

But again, this is all rather off-topic. If there is a specific content issue you would like to discuss I'd be happy to work with you on solving any problems caused by possible source contradictions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Draft proposal

I've put one up at Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts --Nuujinn (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As we've grown accustomed to, Nuujinn "strategically" omits the more significant negative aspects of Mihailovic's involvement that the sources describe, and uses deliberately lenient language. But there is apparently no point in discussing the draft, as its likely "consensus" will simply be declared eventually by calling for a WP:VOTE. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, votes with reasonable arguments are the only wat to build consensus, aren´t they? Beside number of votes, the quality also counts... For instance, a person clearly manipulating words such as turning normal miltary actions into minor sabotage actions clearly looses quality by showing clear inability for impartiality and neutrality. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources count. Not thoughts and opinions written alongside a nationalism-motivated "vote" on the national hero of the Serbian nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but not selectively used and manipulated sources, but WP:UNDUE. FkpCascais (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right then, we can stop discussing the WP:VOTE and start discussing the manipulated sources. (Heh, you with the the "WP:UNDUE" :), please read it already.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it already, it is not me who thinks that WP on controversial issues allows editors to find one source, exagare it, and "That´s it!!!" Also, it was not me who brough up UNDUE, but I beleave it was Sunray who as mediator knows that is the adequate policy for this cases. I will also like to bring here the comment you made minutes ago where we can clearly see the problem of your participation here, which is that you want to source your own missconceptions, and your goal is not to edit objectively the article. "This bloody Serbs ruining your plans!" Beside, you bring ethnic hateriot into this discussions, which is all but benefitial. FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its starting to look like you don't know what this is about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the draft into the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see I've been reverted by DIREKTOR, so let's talk about it. DIREKTOR, I ask that you restore the references cleanup that you all undid with your reversion, that was a fair bit of work, and I'd like to not have it wasted. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you surprised? Is it not usual practice to try and achieve talkpage consensus before entering one's opposed edits? Your section is beautifully written, make no mistake, and very pleasant to read. As always, you work will not be wasted nor have I ever advocated such a course of action. It is merely, as I have said (and you have ignored), that your section deliberately omits to describe the real acts of collaboration with the enemy :). As I have said before, you have a tendency to lean to the sources you personally prefer, and to disregard and ignore that which you personally dislike.

That said, I'm confident if we both hit the "reset" button our attitudes, once again assume good faith, and really try to reach a consensus (as opposed to trying to threaten others into accepting your first proposed draft), we can achieve an agreement that is in accordance with sources. Your proposal is an excellent starting point, but unamended it is biased indeed. Unfortunately the time difference between our two locations is a problem (one that I've been a victim of too frequently when travelling :)) - it is now 02:38 hours in Split, Croatia, and I must be off to bed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, "as opposed to trying to threaten others into accepting your first proposed draft" Please clarify how that is not an personal attack or strike that comment. The draft has been up for a while now, you have had plenty of time to make suggestions or work on the draft, but have declined to do so. There's nothing I can do about that, that is your choice, not mine. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this hasn't been clear to editors: Nuujinn posted a proposed draft for a collaboration section at Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts on October 23. Would interested editors be able to comment there? And of course, as always, would editors address their comments to content, not the contributor? :) Sunray (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sunray. While I have absolutely nothing against you inviting the man into the discussion, it strikes me as odd that you would alert the user in this manner. Let me be perfectly frank: I am unfortunately at this time the only user here representing the other side of this argument, the idea that you're some form of quasi-mediator would not at this point convince any thorough observer. You are are involved up to your ears and you very much "picked a side". I must say it appears that by supposedly "inquiring" as to the opinions of User:FkpCascais [4], who's position is all too crystal clear to all participants in this discussion, you are engaged in what is little more than "alerting" and "mobilizing your own superior numbers", to use a military analogy.

This is relevant to the current discussion because it indicates willingness to once more play the "democracy card" in supposedly "resolving" this second issue of the debate by pressuring and WP:VOTING, as was the case with the first. This idea of ignoring sources by mobilizing the superior numbers of one side the argument, and "achieving a consensus" within it, seems to be the new preferred methodology. Before we can possibly continue with this issue, it is necessary that assurances be given that this will not be the case once more.

In other words, unless we agree that the two sides of the argument must be in some kind of agreement before consensus can be "declared", discussion is simply pointless, and would constitute wasted effort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The mediation is over. I am an editor like you. You say you have a point of view that you think should be represented. Fair enough. As long as you do that in a reasonable manner, in accordance with WP policies, I can't see a problem. I pinged the participants in the former mediation who may also have something to say. It is not about the number of views or the number of sources. Consensus requires that we ensure that all legitimate views are taken into consideration. We are all charged with attempting to ensure neutrality. Neutrality and consensus are my main concerns. Sunray (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not a point of view and its not mine, I'm talking about sourced facts that are omitted. Facts Nuujinn is probably aware of (or at least should be) since they are outlined in the quotations page. And its not a matter of taking them into consideration: if they are sourced and relevant their inclusion cannot be prevented by the considerations of a majority WP:VOTE. And this is exactly what we have had and have in the article even as we speak.

Since you've not really responded to my post I'll say again: unless we agree that the two sides of the argument must be in some kind of agreement before "consensus" can be "declared", discussion is simply pointless, and would constitute wasted effort. Do we agree?

It would be ridiculous for me to engage in a "discussion" as before only to be bluntly overruled by votes cast by the uncompromising opposing side of the argument. To be sure, that is not to suggest that I will quietly consent to have this article subjected to that sort of ploy once again should you disagree, or that the issue of the "ethnic conflict-cleansing" is over. That course of action on your part would merely disallow any possibility of solving any collaboration disputes here and now via relatively amicable discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe your request is inappropriate. You are posited two sides when there are no sides, really. No one's voting, and the draft was in place for any editor with an interest to work on. Also, you have neither struck nor clarified what you meant by "as opposed to trying to threaten others into accepting your first proposed draft", I ask again that you do one or the other, as I believe that accusation is unfounded and makes amicable discussion difficult. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained that I have no intention to further respond to your request or comments of that sort, as I have become convinced they serve no other purpose than to try and depict my post in as negative a light as possible. This is all I have to say on the issue.

I was frankly expecting you will try to say something like the above. This conflict, just like virtually every other, has two distinct sides to it, particularly one so immensely old as this one. It is of course, perfectly understandable that you would suggest otherwise, since then you can just agree with your friends and pretend to reach a consensus. Real conflict resolution of such a complex issue is a tad more difficult, however. Though I expect one does try to avoid it if one can. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Director, we have moved on from the mediation. I'm hoping we have all learned something. This is not about voting or sides. This is about commenting on the draft prepared by Nuujinn. If you have comments, by all means you should make them. If you have no comment that's your prerogative but the decision on inclusion of Nuujiin's draft can only be based on comments made by interested editors on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"We have all learned something"? "This is not about sides"? Those are wonderful phrases, Sunray, and I'm sure anyone reading them would be impressed at your political correctness, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is there are distinct "sides" to this long-lasting dispute. It is frankly obvious what you're doing and why. What will happen next is you will call upon other users from your side of the debate, "agree" with them, declare a fake "consensus" on the obscenely biased draft, and then try to push it into the article with edit-warring regardless of what I might suggest or write, or what sourced facts find themselves omitted in the standard-issue POV compositions of User:Nuujinn. You may of course rest assured this ploy (of your own contrivance if I remember correctly) will be elaborated-upon on WP:ANI in full detail before any edits manage to get pushed through.

In the present state of affairs, with your "team" holding this article in a proverbial vice through sheer "manpower", there seems no hope for any sort of a counter to whatever you and your friends propose. Reliable sources and sourced facts were brought-up in the past, but you have shown you do at this time have the "power" to circumvent Wikipedia policy in that regard, and ignore outright those references that do not fit your narrative, or marginalize them as you see fit. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As for what is being ignored, allow me to quote myself from as early as May this year:

The following are the main instances of collaboration between Draža Mihailović and the enemies of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and King Peter II. Draža Mihailović, among other things:

• 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)

These are the main acts of collaboration commited by Draža Mihailović (needless to say, each one alone constitutes treason during wartime in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and can be punished with execution). Hence the lead paragraph, in order to include the more prominent points of this subject should sound something like:

“ Draža Mihailović commanded the World War II Chetnik movement in occupied Yugoslavia. In spite of some resistance activity, mainly in southern Serbia, the Chetnik movement collaborated "extensively and systematically" with the occupation forces and their local puppet regimes. Draža Mihailović himself offered to "place himself at the disposal" of the German authorities in Belgrade as early as 28 September 1941, but was rejected at that time.During the German Fall Weiss offensive of early 1943 against the Partisans, Mihailović personally commanded around 13,000 Chetnik troops in joint operations with the Axis powers. The Chetnik commander was aware of and condoned Chetnik-Italian collaboration agreements of early 1942, and issued orders to his subordinates to "cooperate with the German forces", such as on 20 November 1944, adding that he himself "cannot go along because of public opinion". At all times, the Chetnik commander was aware of mainitaing his public image and "pursued a policy of avoiding direct contacts with the Axis", he did however, confer with the Germans personally on five seperate occasions. ”

And this is, of course, as I have many times pointed out, the tip of the proverbial iceberg - one can always add more. To me, with all of the above omitted from the draft in spite of being quoted numerous times, it is personally unbelievable that User:Nuujinn can claim "neutrality" in this issue, or that you Sunray, could assert with a straight face that there are "no sides" to this (two-year-old) conflict.

As a side note, the deliberate nature of the bias present in User:Nuujinn's writing is particularly evident from his description of the 1941 Mihailovic-German negotiations. Even though I had previously pointed out that it was Mihailovic who initiated the talks by dispatching his personal aides to Belgrade on a mission to confer his offer of (quote) "service", with the Germans merely being the ones to suggest a follow-up face-to-face meeting, the user perpetuates the misconception that the German Wehrmacht (in 1941 mind you!) was the one who initiated the talks. Typically misleading in a very clever way: the Germans did invite Mihailovic for a follow-up meeting in person, but it was Mihailovic who initiated the negotiations with the enemy - with nothing less then offers of "service". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, sources disagree about who initiated the meeting, and we documented that disagreement. And you've completely ignored the fact that the German leadership prevented any such agreements, despite the numerous meetings. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no question as to the course of events, they are known in full detail from primary sources (quoted in secondary ones of course). The Germans (the Abwehr) were approached by two Draza Mihailovic's personal aides, who were dispatched from the Chetnik HQ to Belgrade for that purpose ("...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."). Do you challenge this, and on what basis?

There is in fact, no real contradiction in the sources, as I have poi8nted out before. If we were to be silly and viewed exclusively the face-to-face meeting Mihailovic participated in himself, then yes, the German suggested it - and that is what one source states, and it is correct. But only after Mihailovic previously initiated the (unauthorized) negotiations with the Enemy on the whole, by dispatching his two aides with offers of cooperation and (quote) "service" on October 28. He was a Royal Yugoslav Army colonel at that time, not a war minister or even overall military commander: those actions alone, as you probably realize, constitute fraternization with the enemy, i.e. high treason during wartime.

But either way, your draft ignores entirely the dispatch of Pantic and Mitrovic by Draza Mihailovic, which you just said you remember me quoting to you. Why is that? And how do you justify your selective omission of all that "negative" information on Draza Mihailovic from the quotations page? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

which you just said you remember me quoting to you. Where did I say that? And if you bring sources to the discussion, I'll discuss them with you, and you're welcome to suggest specific edits, but otherwise I see no point in talking with you about this. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just the point. I brought all of this up before to you specifically, and explained everything in greater detail than above. Its on the quotations page as well I think. Why did you ignore all of it? What about all the other stuff?

Nuujinn, the point I am making here is that you are biased in your approach, and more importantly that your draft is biased by omission, deliberately by all appearances (since you were personally made fully aware of all the omitted information more than once). The point I am making is that there are distinct "sides" to this argument, and, more importantly, that sources are being ignored.

What is stopping you from calling for another vote as before? I assure you, every single one of the users that voted for your version before would be more than happy to do so again for a version that omits such reputation-damaging information about the Serbian nationalist icon. Honestly, I'm sure you'd easily be able to declare a "consensus".

That is why I say again: unless we agree that agreement must exist between the disputing parties for a consensus to be reached, real discussion is quite pointless. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• 2 to 3 consensus? (don´t forget Swift and Laz, 4 - 3, but anyway, that is not the point.) FkpCascais (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Placement of Legion of Merit pic in article

I have no issue with the pic of the US Legion of Merit being in the article, but it really should be placed in the Legacy section, where the full citation is provided and the presentation of it to his daughter is mentioned. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and move it, seems like a very minor question, at least to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

lead section problem

Hi. I see this... "From early 1942 Chetnik factions began collaborating with Italian forces and, after the collapse of Italy as an Axis power, with German occupation forces.[4]"... I think that is not appropriate to be in the lead section. There is so much more to this, and at any rate the article is about Mihailovic, not about the Chetniks. (LAz17 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)).

What would you suggest? Also, you may wish to comment on the current discussions at the Chetniks article. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha.. :) Nuujinn, you're a gem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and trimmed the lede a bit, since this is really about Mihailovic and not the Chentiks. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it still needs some work. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, it is rough. Please take a crack at it, and I'll make another pass later today. Right now I'm burning daylight (east coast US) and need to get to painting since rain's coming tomorrow.... --Nuujinn (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[quote]What would you suggest?[/quote] I suggest that I get a cookie or something for giving a good suggest that was followed up with.

I did something else relating to the Chetnik page. Could you spruce up these references that I added while expanding this unusual section? [5] (LAz17 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)).

Churchill quote

The selective Churchill quotes in the Legacy section need proper context. The quote should be provided in toto to reflect Churchill's meaning. It does not currently reflect his meaning. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mihailovic at the Thessaloniki Front.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mihailovic at the Thessaloniki Front.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mihailovic poternica 1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mihailovic poternica 1941.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:DMihailovic poternica.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DMihailovic poternica.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cetnik-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cetnik-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pavle Djurisic.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pavle Djurisic.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of the Template: Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

In the absence of User: BoDu starting a discussion regarding their edits of this article to remove the subject template from this article, I have started this discussion to deal with the edit warring. So far as I can see there is only one issue here; whether this template applies to DM. The text of the article makes it clear (via sources) that DM collaborated indirectly with the Axis, and that Chetniks under his command collaborated with the Axis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion whether the template should exist at all. BoDu (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Labeling DM a 100% collaborator and putting him next to Pavelic is just plain nonsense. The template should IMHO be renamed and recomposed into a template about the whole World War II/Yugoslavie situation. In its current state, it is just plain pathetic, but it could be turned into something useful.Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What is nonsense is this ridiculous scale where resistance "redeems" collaboration. The introduction of percentages to "quantify" ones "collaborativeness" illustrates that point very nicely. Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis at points, that's a fact. And that is what the template is about. The template is not about "assessing" one's general role in the conflict, it merely mentions prominent individuals who cooperated with the occupation. -- Director (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the template is about assessing. Plus, it offers a biased and simplistic vision of a complex series of event. Therefore, it should be reworked. End of the argument as far as I'm concerned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the template is not about assessing. It offers no view on any events whatsoever. "End of argument.." -- Director (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is at present used as a particularly sad example of pov-pushing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to express it with the strongest adjectives you can find - but this is not a forum. The sources disagree. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of torture during trial

I have removed the following sentence:

Mihailović appeared physically and intellectually weakened, possibly by torture. His answers were often incoherent.

The reference provided is a secondary source, which claims torture by referencing the official transcripts of the trial (primary source). These transcripts state quite the opposite. Mr. Mihailovic stated that he was well treated. Moreover, the trial was broadcasted live, and in the presence of 69 journalists - none of which raised any issue in regards to his health or mental state. If he was tortured, he had the means to let the world know.

Mostly, I repeat, the provided source is secondary, pointing to the primary, which attests to exactly the opposite; He was not tortured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicker1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes

Changes I made:

• I removed McDonald (2002) as he does not take sides and simply points out what Tim Judah has said, which is that the authenticity is disputed.
• I removed Pavlowitch (2005) as it's a book review and since Pavlowitch (2007) is already present.
• Added Mihailović's view of expelling the Muslims.
• Rephrased text about Đurišić reporting the massacres of Muslims and added Mihailović's response.

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Article tags

This article has been tagged for a long time, but there has been little recent discussion here, let alone sufficient to justify the tags. If an interested editor continues to have concerns, could you state them here so that they can be addressed? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted them. If anyone has something to justify them, feel free to raise it here, of course. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

there is no realible non-communist reference that say that Draža was collaborator. It is titoist communist propaganda that was invented against ideologic enemy. HuHu22 (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

so you say. Name the sources you say are communist, and produce reliable sources that say they are communist and support your contention that they are unreliable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

no, mister. you produce here sources that say that Draža was collaborator. then I will say are these communist. we have no source here and we are unable to speak about something that no exist. HuHu22 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 and PRODUCER are revert waring and not discuss changes on talk. HuHu22 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

There is no proof that the Chetniks were to be blamed for massacres and terrorism and ethnic cleansing or whatever else he is being blamed for! Specifically in #Terror Tactics and Cleansing Actions. Whoever added that simply took one point of view. The Croats and Muslims were blamed by others but who is telling the truth? We don't know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source that questions Chetnik responsibility for the massacres? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you show me the source that blames the Chetniks? Also, I don't believe anyone convicted him of war crimes other than the SFR of Yugoslavia which was condemned by the Western World if I recall... (The government as a whole was condemned, not this issue specifically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume from that response that you have no source. The sources for the Chetnik responsibility for those massacres are in the article already. I am therefore removing the POV tag until a source is provided. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources to you?

Oh unquestionably. -- Director (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming

His last name is spelled Mihajlovic not Mihailovic. Why is it spelled that way? Shouldn't it be renamed to the correct spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And "Mihailović" is the correct spelling. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? In Serbian, his name is spelled "Mihajlovic" or "Михајловић". Only you English speaking nations spell it like that.

Nope. And I speak Serbian and Croatian quite well, actually :). -- Director (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am Serbian and I know his name is spelled Mihajlovic. Where in the world did anyone get "Mihailovic" from?

I would have thought that his name was originally in Cyrillic, not roman script. Regardless, that spelling is used overwhelmingly in sources in English, which is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the script really matters.. Serbian Cyrillic and Gaj's Latin are completely interchangeable. I'm reasonably certain "Mihailović" is the most common version in both languages. -- Director (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

According to RSN discussion Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source. I removed it from the list of the sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

according to one editor, (User:Fifelfoo). That is not consensus. RSN states "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". There was no consensus of several editors, and it certainly isn't official policy. Your tagging of this whole article on the basis of Cohen, whose reliability you personally dispute, is just disruptive and blatant POV warring. Continuation of this approach beyond the currently affected article (Djurisic) where you don't have a consensus, will be reported as disruption. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have reverted the change of image in the infobox twice now, on the basis that the photograph of DM with the beard is contemporary with the period for which he is most notable. An IP editor continues to change it back without even an edit summary or bringing the discussion here under WP:BRD, will report this for edit warring if it occurs again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The reversion to a non-contemporary portrait has recurred and has again been reverted. For editors that consider that the younger (unbearded) portrait is more appropriate, it is clear from the several reversions of the image that the matter is contested by at least two involved editors. Please discuss here to achieve consensus. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs Sourcing

The following passage was removed:

"According to Dr. Marko Hoare, "On other occasions, however, Mihailović's Chetniks rescued German airmen and handed them over safely to the German armed forces... The Americans, with a weaker intelligence presence in the Balkans than the British, were less in touch with the realities of the Yugoslav civil war. They were consequently less than enthusiastic about British abandonment of the anti-Communist Mihailović, and more reserved toward the Partisans.""

A claim of this sort should be properly footnoted, with the volume and page number, like most other assertions in this article. This helps with quality control, weeding out wild claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.36.112 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

German Medal

Some web sites state that Draza got a gold anti-partisan medal from the Germans. Can this be checked? I would like to either put it in the article as a fact or list it as a discredited rumour. 2.28.140.201 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Which web sites? FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Stalin looking to cooperate with Draža in fall 1942

• Ivan Miladinović (October 30, 2014). "The Soviets Favored Draža". Reiss Institute.--Zoupan 05:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Rehabilitated

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2015&mm=05&dd=14&nav_id=94116 --Helios13 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Draža Mihailović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504142243/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Draža Mihailović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525233316/http://znaci.net/NARA/AgF/301_111.htm to http://znaci.net/NARA/AgF/301_111.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Draža Mihailović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325184424/http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Hronika/313524/Protest-zbog-rehabilitacije-Draze-Mihailovic--Mladic--Genocid to http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Hronika/313524/Protest-zbog-rehabilitacije-Draze-Mihailovic--Mladic--Genocid
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810033954/http://english.blic.rs/In-Focus/6091/Excavation-of-Draza-Mihajlovics-grave to http://english.blic.rs/In-Focus/6091/Excavation-of-Draza-Mihajlovics-grave
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401191831/http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/vijesti/teme/87621-prekid-diplomatskih-odnosa-zbog-mihailoviceve-rehabilitacije-bih-razmatra-povlacenje-ambasadora-iz-srbije.html to http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/vijesti/teme/87621-prekid-diplomatskih-odnosa-zbog-mihailoviceve-rehabilitacije-bih-razmatra-povlacenje-ambasadora-iz-srbije.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazis did not like him

What about including one of their anti-Chetnik propaganda posters? http://www.allworldwars.com/image/089/NaziCollaborationPosters060.jpg

It says “Draza Mikailovich - Grave Digger for the Serbian People” 86.176.144.240 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides probably giving a wrong perception to readers, seems we dont have such files in commons. FkpCascais (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)