Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive2

Begin mediation

Welcome to the mediation. My apologies for the delay. I've read the article talk page and I am delighted with the civil manner in which participants have generally conducted discussion thus far. To begin, I would ask each participant to make a brief opening statement of no more than 200 words describing your view of the dispute and opportunities for resolution. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have made some comments on the opening statements thus far. I am doing this so that we can move forward and get to the issues. I think we have a representative sample of points of view thus far. I am aware that there are some opening statements still to come, and those participants may add them in the next short while or so. Sunray (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by FkpCascais

Yes, the talk page was quite an experience... Well, I´ll try to be as breaf as possible. What I defend here is that D.Mihailovic is being exageratedly and intentionally desribed as Axis-collaborator when the trouth is much complex and the sources clearly doesn´t put the things that simple. This way, his person, and the moviment itself, are leveled as some of the worste WWII criminals, when in reality, he lead a resistance movement that ocasionally, and under extremely hard circunstancies, had to collaborate. The only sources that can eventualy source the statements made by User:DIREKTOR are the ones that come from works of Jozo Tomasevich, wich comes to be Croatian, and wrote them in Tito Yugoslavia, thus, understandably, not being able to be the most objective, and reliable, when comes to describe a Serbian monarchic movement, and its leader. For such a serios acusation, additional sources are needed to confirm it, under WP:REDFLAG. I just pretend to bring the article to a much neutral ground.

Welcome, and I am extremely greatfull that you accepted this mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by DIREKTOR

imho, despite appearances this is a rather straightforward matter. Draža Mihailović was the commander of the Chetniks, a force that engaged in widespread collaboration (for a brief account please see the fully sourced summary of the subject here), yet for some reason their commander, an icon of Serbian nationalism, is completely "off limits". There are a large number of scholarly 2ndary sources, professional university publications clearly listing unambiguous acts of collaboration directly on the part of this person, as well as evidence of his support for the widespread (by 1945 virtually universal) collaboration among his subordinates, not to mention the lack of any punitive action against them. User:FkpCascais has, however, chosen to dismiss all of the above with very little or no sources in his support. He categorically and uncompromisingly opposes the inclusion of the word "collaboration" in any shape or form. The only worthwhile counter-argument is the lack of discipline among the Chetniks. This however, while undoubtedly true, does nothing to "excuse" Mihailović from his own actions (as is briefly elaborated upon here).
This would be the brief account. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Georges

Hi. I haven't even looked at the article for several weeks in order to avoid being irritated by it. I actually promised myself that I would work on it by the end of april, but have been lacking the time to do so. Woe on me. However, I hope I'll be able to do so in a reasonable delay : what has been keeping me from doing so is sheer laziness, as the version I last saw, which described Mihailovic as, above all, a hardcore collaborationist, needed to be rewritten entirely, and I do mean entirely. Mihailovic was certainly no traitor and no collaborator, even though he was an abject failure as a resistance leader : to begin with, he was, historically, the first person to start a genuine guerilla movement in nazi-occupied Europe. He was initially trumpeted as a hero by Allied propaganda. To describe him, first and foremost, as a collaborator, is highly misleading to say the least. That he was - IMHO - a questionable and semi-ineffectual (make that completely ineffectual; I personally consider him a klutz and an incompetent) military leader does not make him a traitor. Nor does the fact that some Chetniks leaders collaborated with the Italians and the Germans. The Chetnik "movement" (or so-called movement) was, as a whole, incoherent and ineffectual and some of its components were highly reprehensible, but putting all the blame on its nominal leader is IMHO a severe error in judgement. In my opinion, the Mihailovic, Chetniks and Yugoslav front (and assorted battles) articles have to be rewritten completely by unbiased editors. That's what should be done before any mediation (which is welcome BTW) is undertaken. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by BoDu

The rules say this: "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources". As there is no a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, I think the articles should emphasize that some scholars claim Mihaliović/Chetnik movement engaged in collaboration with the Axis. And, logically, there should not be inclusion of Mihailović and all Chetniks movement on the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. BoDu (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by Nuujinn

I don't really have a dog in the race, I just came over a while back to see if I could lend a hand as a neutral editor. So far, I've seen lots of sourcing showing that Mihaliović and Chetniks collaborated with the Axis. Chetniks also fought with the Axis, fought the partisans, fought the Allies, rescued soldiers from both sides, and engaged in ethnic cleansing. It was obviously a bad and complicated time. I'm still reading, but so far the sources that I've found that claim that Mihaliović did not collaborate are not very good, in that they are lacking references, are first person accounts, and are generally very slanted. I've asked other editors to supply sources, and a number of very good sources provided by other editors claim that Mihaliović wasn't just a collaborator, but so far I haven't seen any that are verifiable and reliable that claim that Mihaliović did not collaborate. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement by AlasdairGreen27

All of the sources agree that Mihailović collaborated. There are no sources that say that he did not. None. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is appropriate that the lead of this article should affirm what the sources say. The extent of his collaboration should be discussed later in the article.

Mediator's comments on opening statements to date

My thanks to those who replied in less than 200 words. I suggest that we continue to be concise in our posts in this mediation. It helps in two ways: 1) Writers tend to consider their posts carefully, thus making them clearer, and, 2) readers (often pressed for time) can easily grasp important points other participants are making.

Here are some conclusions I’ve drawn from the opening statements:

• Draža Mihailović is viewed very differently by different commentators and sources
• There are strong political views about Mihailović and the Chetniks’ role in WWII.
• As an encyclopedia, we need to be cognizant of these views and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, cover them in relation to their prevalence.
• The article should be written in an unbiased manner.
• Agreement on credible sources will be important in reaching agreement on article text, and thus critical for the success of this mediation.
• WP:RS and WP:VER will provide guidance

Do participants agree with the foregoing? If not, please specify any points you think I’ve got wrong or missed. BTW my own summary is about 200 words long. I aim to make my posts shorter as we go :) Sunray (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. BoDu (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed, --Nuujinn (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)