Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ba Congress/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2021 [1].

Ba Congress

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the final roll of the dice for Draža Mihailović's Chetnik guerilla movement in occupied Yugoslavia during WWII. Conducted at a point when large parts of the Chetnik movement had been drawn into collaboration with the Germans and their puppets, it may have been conducted with the tacit approval of the Germans. Its main outcome was the creation of a single political party and political platform for the Chetniks, something that came far too late in proceedings to have any impact on the eventual Allied decision to abandon the Chetniks and throw their full weight behind Josip Broz Tito's Partisans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews

[edit]
  • File:August Meyszner.jpg I think the copyright claim on this one is wrong. The amount of works that are PD-exempt under German law is quite narrow, and this doesn't seem to be "a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". According to Commons:Template:PD-Germany-§134 the image would have been copyrighted for 70 years after publication, until after URAA date. (Also, it is not adding very much to the article.)
s5 (2) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights states that "official works" include "other official works, which have been published in the official interest for general knowledge" [Das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind] as long as the source is credited, and a government directory about the members of the Reichstag is clearly published in the public interest for general knowledge. I think depiction of the senior SS and police official in the occupied territory, who was apprised of the outcomes of the conference, is quite relevant to the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even accepting that argument, "as long as the source is credited" is not public domain, as claimed—so the licensing is wrong. And I'm not sure how official it is given that it appears to have been printed by a private publisher (de:Rudolf Ludwig Decker). (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the issue is here, the German law says (if it is an official work) it is PD-exempt, not PD, they are two different things. So how is the licensing wrong? And if you look at Worldcat for other entries for this same book, it clearly says that it is a "National government publication"[2] or Government publication"[3]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official work (de:Amtliches Werk) is not synonymous with public domain in German law. The dewiki article cites Wolfgang Maaßen: Bildzitate in Gerichtsentscheidungen und juristischen Publikationen, in: ZUM 2003, S. 830–842. as stating that the reuse of images included in court proceedings and so forth outside their original context is prohibited. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not "and so forth", Maaßen's work clearly is about images from court decisions and legal publications. This is a governmental publication, not a legal one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be at an impasse here, I wonder if Nikkimaria would mind having a look at this one? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak German so not sure how much help I'll be in interpreting the nuances of the statute. However, commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Official_works indicates that the GermanGov tag should not be used for works claimed under s5(2)? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the German licence with PD-because, and explained what I've detailed above. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you don't need to spell out Draža Mihailović in the second caption you mention him ()just use last name?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Funk, sorry about the delay, I was peacemaking another Balkan drama, and got distracted. I will advertise this with the Milhist, Hist and Yugo projects to see if I can drum up some more reviewers. In the meantime, if you would like to do a full review, that would be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I also see a new review may begin below, so there'll be less chance of archival. A few more comments below for now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "creation of the Ustasha puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH)" This wording is a bit esoteric, how about something like "a puppet state controlled by the fascist Utasha organization" or similar for context? If so, a link to fascist further below should be removed.
Fixed, I hope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the pre-war Banovina Croatia" You could add "province" for context?
have used current states for clarity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the Italian capitulation" Can it be linked? Seems like there is a link further below which should then be removed.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reaffirmation of the Yugoslav idea" Anything to link?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the extremist Greater Serbia elements" A bit esoteric, maybe "for the extremist elements that had Greater Serbia as their goal" or similar?
Reworded slightly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Views on the character of the congress have varied between" The present tense "have" made it seem like these are later views, perhaps remove it it only applies to contemporary figures?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this was opposed by Vasić and Moljević." Why?
Probably because of the large Serb population within Bosnia which they wanted to tack directly onto Greater Serbia, but I seem to have misplaced the scan of the relevant page which might confirm that, so have requested it from RSX. Will update when I get it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source that explains, and added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You suddenly mention ""Ravna Gora" without introduction. What is it?
An alternative name for the Chetniks. Added explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "national minorities who were enemies of Yugoslavia" Any specification of who these were?
Redžić doesn't say, but the Germans of Yugoslavia would definitely be on top of the list, possibly also the Bosnian Muslims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Claims by Chetnik adherents that this aspect of the Ba Congress demonstrated "overwhelming popular support" for Mihailović are seriously flawed,[44] as they fail to recognise that the pre-war Yugoslav political parties were not mass-membership organisations, and support from the leaders in no way assured support from those that voted for the various parties in the most recent election in 1938." This reads distinctly as someone's opinion and is sourced to a single citation, so I think in-text attribution would be appropriate here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He forcefully refused to join the drift into collaboration affecting much of the Chetnik movement at the time" I assume this refers to collaboration with the Germans, but I think it could be stated outright for clarity then.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These reports mentioned the frequent anti-German outbursts that had occurred" This doesn't really seem to be mentioned in the Discussions section, could we get some examples of this there?
Good point, added a sentence to the discussion section, but there isn't any further detail about what was said. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it would be too much, but could the end of the article mention how the Chetniks fared later in the war? Did they end up allied with the Germans, or did they stay ambiguous?
Added a para. Too much? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The principal outcome of the congress was the creation of the JDNZ, a political party formed to unite all elements of the Chetnik movement." and "At the congress, a new political party was formed, the Yugoslav Democratic National Union (Serbo-Croatian: Jugoslavenska demokratska narodna zajednica, JDNZ)" seems repetitive. Why not merge the two sentences?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has been argued that the congress was held with the tacit approval of the Germans" It seems odd that you give the in-text attribution for this in the intro rather than the article body. I'd assume the intro is where you'd want to save space.
Now fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk, all done except I am waiting for access to a source for why Vasić and Moljević opposed a Bosnian federal unit. It may not say, but best to check. Please check if I've addressed your other comments satisfactorily. Thanks for the review, and again, apologies for the delay in addressing them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
I was waiting for some responses to my comments above while I was reviewing elsewhere, but was going to continue soon. Unless this will be archived soon whether I continue or not? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll try and take a look sometime later this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away for a few days, but will try to address a few comments when I have internet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Parsecboy

[edit]
  • the lead in these negotiations was the leader" - lead and leader seems a little repetitive to me
Good point, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lines "On 8 December 1943, in the wake of the Tehran Conference decision...attacks were never carried out." and then "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used... dismissed as a minister in the government-in-exile." seem out of place to me. I can see the connection between the refusal to carry out the sabotage and Britain boycotting the congress and shifting support to the Partisans, but it seems much more suited to the Prelude section to me. I'd think it would make more sense to move that material up, and then simply state that the British refused to attend because of it, but that Musulin attended at his own initiative.
Excellent idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through that section again, I think it might fit best if you split off the bit beginning with "The second threat was..." and integrate it there. It seems like it would fit nicely with the line about the Brits deciding by December that the Chetniks were more interested in fighting the Partisans than the Axis. Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, thanks Nate. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moljević and the long-term Chetnik supporters clashed with Topalović and the politicians" - it's a little unclear what actually happened here - arguments? A physical confrontation of some sort?
Verbal as far as I can tell, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it curious that the anti-communist Chetniks sent a message of solidarity to Stalin - any idea what that was about?
There was a bit of pan-Slavism going on among the Serbs, but have added a bit from Roberts that explains the background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "national minorities who were enemies of Yugoslavia" - do we have any indication which groups were to be targeted?
FunkMonk asked the same question, probably the Volksdeutsche and Bosnian Muslims for starters, but the sources don't specify. The resolution was quite vague, and this was probably intentional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

[edit]

An excellent and detailed article that does well to cover a complicated subject. From my read through I had only a small number of comments - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says: In December, the major Allied powers met at Tehran and decided to provide their exclusive support to the Partisans and withdraw support from the Chetniks. but the main text states at the Tehran Conference of 28 November to 1 December, the Allies had agreed to throw their support behind the Partisans. Was the decision made on the last day of the conference?
Good pickup, fixed lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principal outcome of the congress was the creation of the JDNZ, a political party formed to unite all elements of the Chetnik movement. We've already established that the JDNZ was a political party earlier in the lead so it seemed a little repetitive to me. Perhaps "...the creation of the JDNZ which was intended to unite..." but happy if you want to keep it as is
This was also picked up by an earlier reviewer, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topalović proposed that Bosnia should be a fourth federal unit, but this was opposed by Vasić and Moljević. was a little confusing for me. The only prior mention of possible federal constituents was the communist proposal of "six constituent republics with equal rights, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia". The three units of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia proposed by the congress are not introduced until the Ba Resolution is outlined in the next section.
Moved this bit down to after the outline of the Ba Resolution, it doesn't need to be where it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done I reckon, Dumelow! Thanks for taking a look. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good Peacemaker67 - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, PM! Congratulations for weaving together this readable article on such a convoluted subject. Pendright (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The Ba Congress, also known as the Saint Sava Congress or Great People's Congress, was a meeting of representatives of Draža Mihailović's Chetnik movement between 25 and 28 January 1944 in the village of Ba in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during World War II
Consider these changes: was a meeting of representatives of [the] Draža Mihailović's Chetnik movement [held] between 25 and 28 January 1944
I don't think the definite article is right, but added "held". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Partisans and the Ustashas had united to exterminate [the] Serbs.
Add [the] definite article
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backgrund:

  • In different parts of the country the Chetnik movement was progressively drawn into collaboration agreements: [.] f [F]irst[,] with the forces of the puppet Government of National Salvationin the German-occupied territory of Serbia, then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, [next] with some of the Ustasha forces in the northern Bosnia region of the NDH, and, after the Italian capitulation in September 1943, with the Germans directly.
Consider the above changes
Done, thanks, much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:

Reverses in Montenegro and Herzegovina had shown that the Chetnik political program was producing unsatisfactory results,
Was it the execution of the program or an ideology failure?
principally the ideology, although their political organisation was also poor, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Pribićević and Stanojević were only the nominal leaders of their respective parties, as the real decision-makers in their parties were with the government-in-exile in London.
The word only would seem to fit better after the?
I don't think so. "only the nominal" is standard phrasing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the Chetnik leader accepted them, with the proviso that the politicians firmly commit to the agreement.
  • Remove the comma after nevertheless, it's optional with a short introductory phrase and the clause seems to read better?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the word but before with
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next step was the calling of a congress to ratify the new political structure and announce the new program.
At this point, isn't it still a proposal?
Yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chetniks took advantage of this delay, which, combined with the relative protection afforded by armistice agreements they had made with the Germans in November, allowed them to convoke the Ba Congress as a striking political gesture aimed at addressing the resolutions of AVNOJ and providing an alternative political vision for post-war Yugoslavia.
Broke this long sentence ino two: See what you think?
The Chetniks took advantage of this delay, by using the relative protection afforded by the armistice agreements they had made with the Germans. It allowed them to convoke the Ba Congress as a striking political gesture aimed at addressing the resolutions of AVNOJ, and providing an alternative political vision for the post-war Yugoslavia.
Good idea, went with something very similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants:

  • The delegates included principal Chetnik commanders, politicians who had joined the Chetnik cause at the beginning, such as Vasić and Moljević, representatives of old Serb political parties who had decided to join with the Chetniks later on, and others.
Consider adding the word "attendinrg" between "The & delegates", and delete the comma betweem "on & and"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conference was unique during the war in that it was the only gathering which included the main Chetnik commanders and closely aligned politicians as well as Chetnik supporters among the pre-war political parties.
  • As you know, the words conference and congress differ in meaning - does it matter here?
Changed for consistency. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a 34 word sentence without a punctuated pause?
Added a comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 8 December 1943, in the wake of the Tehran Conference decision,[9] the British Commander-in-Chief of the Middle East, General Henry Maitland Wilson had sent a message to Mihailović asking him to attack two specific bridges on the Belgrade to Salonika railway line.
Add a comma after Wilson.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tito exclusively, and that Mihailović might have to be dismissed as a minister in the government-in-exile.[9]
Unclear?
In what respect? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<> I misread, my apology! Pendright (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussions:

  • Mihailović was not overtly involved in the following discussions.
  • In common with political practice under the period of royal dictatorship from 1929, the congress formed a new political party, the Yugoslav Democratic National Union (Serbo-Croatian: Jugoslavenska demokratska narodna zajednica, JDNZ), and Topalović was appointed as its chairman. Despite the very small size of the Socialist Party before the war, Topalović was apparently chosen due to his links with two Labour Party members of the Churchill war ministry, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin.
The transition between these two paragraphs do not seem to connect smoothly.
I have actually inserted an additional sentence at the end of the first para of the section, so that may affect how you see this but the paras have distinct purposes, the first to explain Mihailović's stance, the second to explain the formation of the JDNZ, and the last to explain the different takes on the congress by the participants. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolutions:

  • and called upon the Partisans to follow democratic process.
Need an article between follow & democractic
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Pendright. Thanks for your excellent review. Just one query above I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Responded to query, all good! Supporting - Pendright (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this seems to be progressing well, three supports (including one non-Milhist) and image and source reviews, with another support anticipated. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ba_Congress/archive1&oldid=999483856"