Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New draft of article

While the above discussion has been going on, Jean-Jacques has worked diligently to produce a revised draft of the article, reflecting much of the discussion. Would participants be willing to look at his proposed version and provide comments in the section below? I would like to hear from everyone, if possible. If you are pressed for time, would you be able to at least review the lead and indicate whether you:

  1. Agree
  2. Have some concerns [describe them], but are willing to stand aside—i.e., accept the decision to go ahead with the proposal, or
  3. Do not agree, but are willing to work on an alternative version.

I will ping all participants to get their input. Sunray (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • Do not agree with User:Jean-Jacques Georges' version, and do not agree with working on a draft before solving the main original point of dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a general comment and does not fit in any of the sections below. If others share this view, please comment here, otherwise, please indicate your views in one of the sections below. Sunray (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I must say that Direktor's opinion is, to put it mildly, the least of my concerns. I also don't think people should vote over the content on an article. However, being far from done, I am open to well-founded corrections, suggestions and additions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, it is your privilege to care or not. Nevertheless, I do care about DIREKTOR's opinion, as I do about that of all participants. That's why I get the big bucks for being a mediator ;-) My hope is that participants will each chose one of the categories below and we can continue making progress. BTW this is not to be confused with voting. This is a test of consensus (and I suspect we will have more work to do). Sunray (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: If JJG version was favorable to DM and Chetniks (which it isn´t), then we would need to find some solution "in between" his and the current version, but that is not the case. If we have to take into consideration the current version, it would be fair then to let a "real" Mihailovic simpatizer writte a version, and then make an intermediate version... Please stop this false idea that JJG is not neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, did I make any claim regarding Jean-Jacques Georges's neutrality or lack thereof? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, in the logic of finding "fair" to make an "intermediate" solution. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Did I use the word "fair" or "intermediate"? I do not believe I did. As for letting a "'real' Mihailovic simpatizer" edit a version, I'd be ok with that--it doesn't matter to me who might personally regard him as a villain or a hero so long as they can produce reliable and verifiable sources for whatever edits they propose. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, if you suggest it, indirectly, you consider it "fair" (unless your intention is not to be fair), but anyway, OK, clear then. Also, JJG has already expressed his will in hearing what more sources could/should be added, and I even sugested an inclusion of one chapter dedicated to "collaboration", so I think we are in a good way to get somewhere. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
See my comments and suggestions below. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I do not consider my draft to be a "definitive" version, but only a basis for creating a worthwile article and be fleshed out with as good info as possible (that's what draft are for), the first thing to do being to replace the current horse manure that is on the Mihailovic page.

Good thing that someone actually acquired Tomasevich's book. I'd like to know if AlasdairGreen27 also has read it and (most importantly) owns it : if so, I'd really like to be submitted helpful quotes from the book (and when possible links to google books) so I can add them to my draft. As for FPKcascais' s opinion that he should not be used at all, so far I have no definitive opinion.

Still about the sources : if the only source for Mihailovic's order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans (I'll check that fact) is Philip J. Cohen's book "Serbia's secret war", then I suggest we dispense with this info entirely. I have taken a look at Cohen's book on google and my opinion (though I may be wrong) is that it's a piece of shit, just interesting as an example of anti-Serb literature. It seems also that Cohen is not a historian, but a dentist who likes history (please let me know if I am wrong) so he shouldn't be taken as face value. I have a strong hunch that his book should not be used as a source, though it can of course be mentioned.

One major flaw in AlasdairGreen27's reasoning is that it seems to rest on the idea that there is a consensus among historians to consider Mihailovic as a collaborator. From what I have read, it appears that this is not the case at all, or at least not like he seems to imply. What emerges is that historians agree, for the most part, that the Chetniks indulged (though not all of them, and not constantly) in acts of collaboration, but the responsability of Mihailovic himself is definitely not clear-cut.

To make a long story shorter, the dominant thesis among historians is not that Mihailovic was a collaborator who indulged here and then in acts of resistance, but a resistance leader who allowed that part of his (nominal) troops indulge in acts of collaboration against the communist Partisans, or who at least failed to take action against it. (granted, not what you normally expect from a resistance leader). This is also pretty much what emerges from Roberts and Pawlovitch's books who, I repeat, are not sympathetic to Mihailovic, but merely try to be neutral (Pawlovitch can even be considered unsympathetic to the Chetniks as a whole, although he is not pro-Partisan either, at least not pro-Tito).

However, if my draft appears pro-Mihailovic and seems to state that the British's change of mind was unmotivated and unfair, then I'm very disappointed, because that's one of the things I was trying to avoid. I thought that the facts that the British were worried about Mihailovic's insufficient actions and the Chetnik's collaboration were clear enough. If that is not the case, I may rewrite those parts and add more facts. I also thing that Mihailovic comes across as anything but a reliable leader.

Here is what I propose : since I plan to finish a complete draft in the next few days (not today, but perhaps tomorrow if time permits), I'd like to know if the users here would be willing to give me a hand and give me ASAP as many quotes and links to google books, in order to have more sources and flesh out the article, so it can also be finished ASAP. Just give them to me here and I'll add as many as possible to the draft, correcting it as I go according to what is said here and trying to take opinions in consideration. This way we can hope to have a worthwile draft in the course of next week. I'd also like to add that, although the lead has to be trimmed, I am very reluctant to remove any of the info that I have put in the draft, which means we'll mainly be able to add info : so the article is bound to be quite long, which is not necessarily a bad things in my eyes, regarding such a complex and touchy subject.

Please tell me what you think so we can work together and finish this business. The urgent thing being, I repeat myself, to replace the current article, which is completely inadequate and a real shame to wikipedia : IMHO, not a word of it should be kept.

I'd like to add that my goal is also to rewrite completely the article on the French wikipedia, which is equally pathetic, but on the opposite side (last time I had a look at it, it basically said that Mihailovic could do no wrong and walked on water, which is also problematic) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also : I remind everyone here that I plan to rewrite Chetniks, Yugoslav Front as well as Yugoslavia and the Allies, using the same "draft" method. Since I do not want to indulge in overly personal essays, and since the opinion of several users here may be worthwile, I will notify them when I'll be working on each draft, and ask for advice, comments and suggestions (provided they are still willing to spend time on these subjects, of course). I think this might be a good way of producing fair and balanced articles. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JJG. You should already be awarded for all the efforts you have made. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Work on JJG draft

I see that Jean-Jacques Georges has finished his draft. Does anyone has any suggestions on how we should proceed? Does it make sense to copy it to a subpage here and try to work on it together? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to move the draft to a subpage here, so participants can work on it. Would you be willing to do that?
I suggest that participants list any questions or concerns about the most recent draft and discuss them one by one. It would be more effective to be specific. For example:
  • "What is the meaning of __________?" or
  • "I have the following question/concern [state question or concern] about this wording ________ and propose this alternative _________."
We need to capture the questions that have already been raised in the "Comments" section above and in the "Agree/Disagree" sections, below. I would suggest that we begin a new section listing these. Would anyone like to volunteer to facilitate the discussion? I can do it, but it would be nice to have someone else working on it as well. Nuujinn has shown initiative in this area, perhaps he would be willing to do this? Comments? Sunray (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree and I think that having all questions together as you recomended a good solution. I consider that we can/should all participate and we´ll see how the discussions on each question goes. Of course, some participants are more concentrated on one issues and others on another, so each discussion may have its own path, and obviously an intervention of all would be good on the conclusion of each one of them. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll have some time to look at this tomorrow. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, just let me know. Please take note that I do not regard the draft as "finished" (is anything ever finished here ?) but just as a satisfactory starting point to build an acceptable article. I might add some stuff in the following days but need a little break right now. We can discuss here whatever you like and see how you can help me improve it. BTW, I hope that the "finished" product shows that any intention to "support" or "rehabilitate" Mihailovic is far from my thoughts (next I'll work on the Chetniks article, for which help will be also appreciated). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a section with questions for resolution below, please add additional questions as needed, and I am copying the draft here --Nuujinn (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree

  • There are some minor details that I hope I will be able to explain with time soon, but generally is way better handed than the current version, much more precise about the facts, and definitelly much more "encyclopedic", with all the meanings of that, and something that the current version was far from being it. As a diplomatic compromise, I wouldn´t mind to add the prefered section of some participants here, that is the "Relations with the axis", but obviously, it should be rewriten in much more precise perspective about the description of the facts and supositions, and way less childishly acusational as the current version is. There are also some other sections that could be added. Generaly, what I see there is very NPOV, and makes me start to beleave that we are in the right direction about this complex important historic biography. FkpCascais (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Have concerns (described below) but am willing to stand aside

Do not agree, but am willing to work on an alternative

  • This piece of work by a single editor would catapult the Mihailović article to the top of the tree among Balkan articles in terms of detail, referencing, etc. This Wiki area is, by and large, appalling. However, with a heavy heart, given the obvious hour upon hour that JJG has devoted to this task, I have to say that I do not agree with this draft, for the following reasons.
While it is undoubtedly factually accurate in many details, it is far too reliant on Pavlowitch and Roberts, who themselves are not representative of the sources available. The result is that the reader is left with the impression that the withdrawal of Allied support came as a mighty injustice, because the preceding text focusses almost entirely on the acts of resistance and glosses over the collaboration as a minor detail. That is not what pushed Churchill into saying that Mihailović had openly collaborated with the Germans. Typical of this imbalance, as I perceive it, is the sentence in the lead of the role of Mihailović during the war as being disputed: let's look at the number of sources given to support the differing views - "while some authors claim that he was an unsung resistance hero, ultimately betrayed by the Allies[2][3][4], others concentrate mainly on the accusations of collaboration against him[5], and others give a more nuanced version of his actions[6][7][8]. His place in History remains controversial[9][10]". By accident, implication or design, the reader is led to suspect that the view that he was a collaborator/he collaborated (only one source) is a minority view, while precisely the opposite seems to be the case. And so the text goes on - thus they read section after section that focusses on resistance activities and then almost out of the blue and for little or no obvious reason the Allies withdrew their support from Mihailović. The overwhelming reliance on Pavlowitch and Roberts (and the total exclusion of, for example, Tomasević), sources that are, on balance, quite sympathetic to Mihailović means that, for example, there is no mention of the order given to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans, nor of Mihailović's approval of the collaborationist agreements made by Trifunović-Birčanin and Jevđević.
This being my view, I would propose that we use JJG's excellent hard work as the basis for the new article, and all or most of the factual detail is good, but the thrust of it must, must, reflect the sources that we have at our disposal. The majority standpoint among the sources is that, overall, his collaborationist activities somewhat outweighed his resistance activities. Sorry JJG, I really am, as your work is an act above and beyond what 99.999% of Wikipedia editors ever dream of undertaking. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is that I do not have Tomasevich's book at hand and do not want to rely on something I have only glimpsed on google books. However, I am certainly willing to add info using him. Please note also that Roberts and Pawlovitch are not what you'd call sympathetic to Mihailovic. I have no problem with my draft being used as a "skeleton".Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Do Not Agree: I thank Jean-Jacques Georges for this work, he has put in a great deal of work and I find his draft very helpful. My feeling (obviously) is that what we need is somewhere between the current version and Jean-Jacques Georges's version. Regarding the lead, Jean-Jacques Georges's version really needs to be trimmed down. I respect his position regarding having sources at hand, and for what it's worth, I obtained a copies of Tomasevich's and William's works yesterday, so I'll be able to put some work in on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
See my reply, comment and suggestion above in the "comments" section. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Questions for resolution

I would suggest that we first simply answer the questions, and keep comments to a bare minimum in the style of !votes in AFD discussions and RFCs, so we can see if we have consensus on any of these issues. It is my hope that we can resolve some of these, and then we can focus on issues that require additional discussion. Also, I want to point out that since JJG went to the trouble to write out this draft, some of the questions may seem critical of that work--but some of the questions came up before he completed the current version. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

M.'s alleged order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans

Jean-Jacques Georges: 'Still about the sources : if the only source for Mihailovic's order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans (I'll check that fact) is Philip J. Cohen's book "Serbia's secret war", then I suggest we dispense with this info entirely.' Do we have another source for this claim? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is - who says we need one?? Because some user on Wikipedia disagrees, the statement in a published work is now falsified, is that what we should imagine? What nonsense. Cohen's published work outranks the "doubts" and accusations of Wikipedia account users. One source is perfectly enough since no sources contradict it, and there is no reason to consider it unreliable.
User:Jean-Jacques Georges: get a source that contradicts that statement, or discredit Cohen with unfavorable peer reviews. Otherwise there is no conceivable reason why your accusations (which are by the way very serious) should be considered by anyone. These are not my standards, these are the standards of the scientific community. (One mildly negative review naturally does virtually nothing.)

Cohen, a physician who researched sources never before available to the West, weaves a rich tapestry covering the last 200 years of Balkan history while emphasizing the role the Serbs played in World War II. (...) Offering a wealth of new information, this impressive, scholarly book is highly recommended for all history collections.
Library Journal Review

To understand Serbian nationalism requires profound attention to history and careful analysis. Cohen accomplishes both through years of studying primary sources never before translated, focusing on World War II and uncovering the foundations of ethnic cleansing.
Book News

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Cohen's Serbia's Secret War a reliable source?

Jean-Jacques Georges: 'I have taken a look at Cohen's book on google and my opinion (though I may be wrong) is that it's a piece of shit, just interesting as an example of anti-Serb literature.'

I could only find this. Too bad the text of the review is not complete, but the beginning seems less than enthusiastic. Note also that the review states that "Until recently, there were no comprehensive, reasonably-objective English-language histories of World War II Croatia and Serbia" and mentions most books as "sketchy, outdated or hopelessly biased". I think we should really keep these sentences in mind when it comes to appreciate the various sources. BTW, from the few infos that I could find, it appears indeed that Cohen is not a historian, but a physician who likes history. He seems to be also quite controversial and to have been accused of "Serbian-bashing" by Serb associations. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean that's the only negative review you could find... :)
Cohen is a reliable source until proven otherwise. What you've got now is a mildly negative review and (reportedly!) the opinion of Serbian nationalist associations which consider Mihailović a saint and the Chetniks as "true guardians of Serbness"/"Serbhood". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I accessed the Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal through my library, and the Reinhartz review is pretty harsh: "Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical issues, but does so poorly and incompletely. One can see it as part of the current popular-historical and journalistic literature that seeks to demonize and condemn rather than chronicle and elucidate fairly." I also found positive reviews: this and this and this. At this point my !vote is that we use is, but with caution. Personally, I'm not bothered by the fact that history is not his primary vocation, nor am I surprised that he might be bashed by Serbian associations--clearly anyone with an opinion on this issues is subject to bashing from one camp or another. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To Direktor : not, that was the only review I could find, period. Anyway, the "Times Higher education" may count as a peer-review. The other twos are not. In any case, this books seems controversial, so we may dispense with it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is JJG's lead properly balanced?

AlasdairGreen27: 'By accident, implication or design, the reader is led to suspect that the view that he was a collaborator/he collaborated (only one source) is a minority view, while precisely the opposite seems to be the case.'

Please take note that since this remark was made, I have done my best to modify the draft and make it more balanced. To start with, it dealt from the start with the question of collaboration, which I have tried to present in detail. Moreover, from all the sources I have read, I'd say that the majority of serious sources do not present him as "a collaborator", but rather present both collaboration and resistance acts by the Chetniks without taking sides. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG's draft too reliant on a small number of the sources?

AlasdairGreen27: 'it is far too reliant on Pavlowitch and Roberts, who themselves are not representative of the sources available. The result is that the reader is left with the impression that the withdrawal of Allied support came as a mighty injustice, because the preceding text focusses almost entirely on the acts of resistance and glosses over the collaboration as a minor detail.'

I am left with the impression that AlasdairGreen27 did not read my draft very well. I have done my best to detail the process which led to the British reversal. Moreover, the draft has been modified quite a lot (not to mention completed) since this remark was made. As for the sources, Pavlowitch and Roberts are the most "neutral" authors I could find and are certainly not pro-Mihailovic. I have just been trying to be selective with the sources, using first of all the books which I have read from cover to cover, and using the references on google books for additional info only). BTW, I have since added several references to Tomasevic (+ Ramet, Lutard-Tavard, Buisson, Evans...) and have put a lot of "X says that..." and "Y writes that...". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Do please do note that in the intro above I pointed out that you have made changes to your draft after some of these questions had been raised, so the criticism may no longer be valid. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we use the word traitor?

I think a related question is, do any of the secondary sources we have at hand use this word? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • No, unless very well sourced. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Traitor to whom ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please inform yourself about the WWII Yugoslav state. Again: traitor to the state of Yugoslavia (both the royal government and the later coalition government) which was at war with the Axis, with whom he engaged in acts of collaboration while a Yugoslav citizen and military person. "Traitor to whom?" makes no sense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Direktor, you don't make sense. He was certainly not a traitor to the royal government. I now seriously doubt that you have any knowledge of the period at all, besides a few pages glimpsed on google books. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • We should also have in mind that the King was allmost forced to accept the Partisans, and is highly probable (not to say certain) that despite the official statement that he made calling for both joining forces, he may had a possible understanding with M having in mind the option of not including the Partisans. In other words, it is very possible that despite being forced to say that, the King and M had a backstage agreement to do whatever to eliminate the Partisans, and probably, if with favourable outcome, would have tryied to do the same as Tito and the Partisans ended up doing to Mihailovic. Despite the official statement from the King, he and Mihailivic certainly worked together all the way. FkpCascais (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
          • (Its an essential point, Sunray.) According to Yugoslav law (royalist, socialist, whatever) a person collaborating with the enemy during wartime is guilty of high treason. Simply because his actions were unknown by the King does not mean he did not commit them. Either way, he was very obviously guilty of treason according to Yugoslav law - it is completely irrelevant which government he swore by. Even seeking contact with the enemy is treason, let alone the rest... So YES, he was a traitor by Yugoslav law. "Traitor to whom"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
            • "Seeking contact", well, the purpose of it is decisive and everybody was in contact with one another those days... As I said, all I consider correct doing here is mentioning that he was acused by the new Yugoslav governament of treason, new governament that btw was his enemy... (some uses have made enormous obstructions in trying to avoid the "former enemy" clarification on the article, besides all evidence). FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hold on you two. You both said "no." There has been loads of discussion on this. There is actually some consensus here. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, (just kidding...), obviously not, because from what I read and know his story doesn´t really include him being a traitor to nobody, but, if that happends to be the case, obviously sourced, I wouldn´t make any objections in including it on the article, just never in the childish mode: "He is a traitor!"., above all. FkpCascais (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment, I was thinking better, and I decided that if you all don´t pay me one year of free whiskey, I´ll break this wanderfull consensus and I´ll really vote yes. How? Well, I´ll claim that he was a traitor to everybody. If we look better, Mihailovic was a traitor to nationalists (he promised a Great Serbia, ended up with zero results), he was a traitor to his own man (he said,"Do whatever it takes to survive", but he punished many for their actions anyway), he was a Allies traitor (he promised to resist but it looks he ended up giving himself well with at least the Italians:"Va benne Draza?!"), he was a traitor to the Axis (he said that he´ll cooperate if they give him supplies, but it looks that his man decapitated German soldiers anyway) and also, he was a traitor to the King (King said "Cooperate with Tito", M said "Yeah, yeah..."). So, from now on you all know, you must treat me good, and send me some good old malt, preferably over 16 years old... :) FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
      • *Unconscious* Well your observations are accurate FkpCascais (I can't believe I'm agreeing to Fkp's post, its an almost religious experience :), but while the man was a "traitor" (most importantly in accordance with standing Yugoslav law), its arguable whether that word should be used in an encyclopedia article. Its a little POV, even in my opinion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I was making a parody, having had a couple of drinks in a friday night... The parody resides if the meaning of "traitor". Traitor is a person that betrayes, and all I parodised doesn´t certainly apply. The most we can do is to mention that he was acused of traison by the new Yugoslav authorities, nothing more than that. The biggest irony resides in the fact that if we used the word traitor as in my "happy" comment, we could use it to 99% of people involved in politics or any kind of historical decitions. Want an exemple? Tito. I could say that he was a traitor to the Soviets (he was their allie, but turned them his back), he was a traitor to the West (he ended up being stricktly communist in allmost all aspects, besides having promised to the west that he would be way more tolerant), he was a traitor to all Yugoslavs (he left a debt of more that 20 billion dollars!), he was a traitor to the King and Monarchists (he said they will work together and he ended up grabbing the power and aniquilating them), see my point? Not being able to fulfill expectations doesn´t mean that they are traitors. It was definitelly unfortune to decide to agree with me on the ocasion I definitelly decided to joke and be purpously wrong and highly non-unciclopedic. :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I know Fkp. I was making a parody of a parody. A "traitor" (in the context of our discussion) is a person that commits treason. Collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a way to commit treason. Draža Mihailović has committed such acts, has committed treason, hence he is a "traitor". Simple enough. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
            • The final goal of his actions can say more on that than some acts of collaboration, or meatings with the enemy... FkpCascais (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
              • To you maybe. He was a soldier ordered to fight the enemy. Who in the world authorized him to make such decisions? Only the King and the government could possibly sanction such actions of his if they're so beneficial to the "goals" - not he. While his trial may have been irregular, in the end his conviction was just.
                A "traitor" is a person that commits treason. Collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a way to commit treason. Draža Mihailović has committed such acts, has committed treason, hence he is a "traitor". His "goals" are irrelevant. Simple enough. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No. BoDu (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not "Above all collaborator" ?

Since a number of editors have put it this way, are we in agreement that we should not characterize Milhailovic as "above everything, an Axis collaborator"? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There was considerable discussion on this and it was suggested that we describe his collaboration, rather than using the facile label "collaborator." Sunray (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. I have tried to present both sides of the argument in my draft (including the intro) and I suggest we stick to that without being judgemental. Agree with Sunray. Saying "above all collaborator" is ridiculous, since it gives a very misleading impression of his role in history. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I have read the question very carefully. Labeling "above all" a collaborator is utterly inadequate. And that comes from someone who is certainly not a Mihailovic fan. I agree with Sunray : the label is "facile", and that is an understatement. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why I'm surprised--the question is whether we agree that we should not characterize Milhailovic as "above everything, an Axis collaborator". --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, it's friday evening, and I'm tired. :P. I thought that the question was "Above all collaborator ? Yes, No". So, Indeed I am in agreement that we should not label him above all a collaborator. IMHO, we should not label him at all. We should just say that he did this and that, and if possible why and when. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, I've changed your "no" to "yes." I too misread the question at first. Sunray (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, should have phrased it differently, I bolded the not to make it clearer. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Engaged in collaboration?

Can we say that Mihailovic "engaged in collaboration" leaving aside for the moment how often and with whom? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Let's keep it civil guys. Where we don't agree, I suggest that we just describe what happened as succinctly as possible. We don't have to all agree on how something will be characterized. To find consensus we will need to work on alternatives that are acceptable to all. Sunray (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that's a fair characterization, and please, feel free to add additional questions if I missed anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem resides in the fact that you gave us mostly (only one or two are not) the options that you personally consider adequate (mostly from your lede proposal at M talk page). For exemple, for resistance, you only gave the "oportunistic" option, that (evidence from the result, only) you personally consider adequat. Please Nuujinn don´t understand that comment of mine as negative, I said it because I considered it as the main reason why some participants may need further explanations to make. I fully suport you on this, and I did gave you credit by saying "for time being". However, thinking right now, maybe wan´t be a bad idea in the beggining asking people a little bit more wide questions. For exemple, regarding collaboraton, how would you desribe in one, or few, words Mihailovic collaboration? Same for resistance, and so on, and then see what words may be the closer ones to be agreed by all... Something like that. Just an idea. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. @User:Jean-Jacques Georges "I have been trying consistently to present both sides (resistance and collaboration) in a balanced way."
    "Balance", User:Jean-Jacques Georges, does not mean we treat both sides (resistance and collaboration) equally. It means we treat both sides in accordance with their support in sources. Chetnik resistance is a footnote. Their collaboration was far more significant and the sources have confirmed this over and over again. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I have already explained why it is better to state "Mihailovic approved some arrangements with the Axis". BoDu (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "Approved some arrangements with the Axis"? "Approving some arrangements with the Axis" is the very definition of collaboration. Well since you do admit he approved arrangements with the Axis, I have to say we're basically in agreement, except that you do not characterize such acts as collaboration. The entire world might disagree, though. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do characterize such acts as collaboration, but not collaboration as treacherous cooperation with enemy ("collaboration" has different meanings). I explained several times why this word may confuse many readers, and I ask you do you agree that we should state "Mihailovic approved some arrangements with the Axis" instead of "Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis"? If not, can you tell me the reason? BoDu (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Opportunistic resistance?

Can we say that Mihailovic "engaged in opportunistic resistance" leaving aside for the moment how often and against whom? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[As part of a general discussion on the numbers of the Chetnik movement.] About the Chetniks in Montenegro and the Independent State of Croatia we can be more certain. At the beginning of 1943 there were some 40,000-50,000 in Montenegro and in the Italian zone of the Independent State of Croatia; in the German zone about 10,000 Bosnian Chetniks had live-and-let-live arrangements with the Croatian quisling authorities, but the number of "rebel" Chetniks actively working against the Croatin government was undoubtedly much less than that.[source listed] [This adds up to 50,000-60,000 collaborating Chetniks in early 1943, i.e. prior to the Italian capitulation.]
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; pp. 181-182 Stanford University Press, 1975 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

[As part of a general discussion on the numbers of the Chetnik movement.] Soon after the Italian collapse, most of the Chetnik units throughout the country began to serve as German auxiliaries against the Partisans on the basis of formal written or informal oral agreements, and were given arms, ammunition, and other supplies to carry on this fight. But all of these units were always counted by the Chetniks as parts of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland [that being of course, the official name of the Mihailović Chetnik movement].
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; pp. 181-182 Stanford University Press, 1975 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

In short, I can't write-up the whole book here, but there can be no doubt that the Chetniks who actually did resist were a very small minority. Sporadic resistance. Opportunist? Yes that too, but "sporadic" primarily, and generally very rare. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Treatement of sources

I had proposed a solution at Tomasevic discussion, but I was ignored, so that is the reason I feel free to add this question here, and expect some feedback.

I entirely support JJG aproach to sources on his draft, pointing exactly who says what, and this way leaving to the readers a more complete information. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have some negative reviews, the discussion about Tomasevich is over. Bringing him up over and over and over again is pointless. Should I copy-paste his peer reviews here? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think my English is enough clear so anybody can understand I´m talking about all sources, not exclusively Tomasevic. Other touths? FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources should just be juxtaposed, especially when conflicting. Moreover, I raise the question ot Tomasevic's biography : I don't know much about the guy but if he was, as FkpCascai seems to imply, professionnally dependent on Tito's regime, then he should be taken with some precautions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's just it: the sources are NOT conflicting. I've yet to see a source that claims Mihailović did not collaborate, and even if I were hypothetically to see one, it would be a textbook exceptional claim.
"Dependent on Tito's regime"? The book was published under peer-review by Stanford University in 2001 [1], Tito was dead as a doornail in 1980. Unless you find someone other than User:FpkCascais:
the discussion about Tomasvich is over.
If I'm not mistaken, the book dates from 1975. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken out some personalized comments that Direktor and Jean-Jacques Georges made to each other. I like the discussion. It may help participants to remember that the other guy comes from a different perspective. Above all, he is not in your head, hasn't seen what you have, thinks differently about it, has different motivations... Vive la difference! I like the discussion (am I repeating myself?). Perhaps hold off on that "save page" button when you are hot. Take a walk (or whatever). Cool off. We are making progress. Over. Sunray (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just think that we got distracted from the main issue here. It has to do with the approach to the sourced claims and their transpostion on the article. From what I understood, there has been two options here, one has been (indirectly) defended by Direktor and Nuujinn and consists in writting directly the information on the article only adding the source reference, but it had the problem that it has been used, as understood by JJG and me, selectively by direktor, and making many, some throuly others possibly, exceptional claims, as facts, giving the indirect idea that WP fully supports them. The other aproach, much used by JJG on the draft, and fully supported by me, consists in fully mentioning who (what authors) claim what. I know that the approach defended by direktor has been very much used on many articles, but the difference here is that this is a constroversial issue, and by including in the article itself the authors of the claims, observations and conclusions, we have many benefits, for exemple, we avoid "choosing" authors (we can mention the various claims of different authors on several different issues by that providing even more information and avoid being us the ones to consider one authors against others), provide more direct information to the reader (the reader knows imediatly the author, not needing to go to the sources section), we include all "sides" version (no side could accuse WP of favorizing another), we... well, I forgot some other reasons I had in mind, but even by now, sounds nice and much better, doesn´t it? Obviously, the non-controversial issues will be treated normally, and this includes only the disputed, or polemical issues. Could we agree on having this kind of approach regarding the polemical issues? FkpCascais (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@User:Jean-Jacques Georges. His first massive work on WWII Yugoslavia, The Chetniks, was published in 1975 while Tito was still alive to administer mind control pills. The second one was published in 2001 after decades of research. This is not a politically influenced researcher, and that's as obvious a fact as it gets. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG's draft 06/10

Just in case it wasn't clear, Nuujinn moved Jean-Jacques Georges' latest draft to a subpage of this page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/JJG's Draft. Once participants have worked through the questions posed above, would it make sense to work through the draft section by section? That way, we could work collaboratively and also identify areas of consensus (or lack thereof). Then we could do further work on areas were consensus had not yet been achieved. Would folks be willing to try that? Sunray (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. FkpCascais (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Mmmh, I would have preferred to be given suggestions and work on it myself rather than have it tampered with before a version is agreed upon... I hope it won't cause more confusion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that unless participants discuss and agree, the version is unlikely to survive. I cannot see another way than you giving it up and agreeing to let others edit it and get consensus. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologise, I missunderstood the idea. I think that would be easier to adress, in the questions section, all issues regarding the sections already found in the draft. Regarding new sections, I think they could be more easily worked here first, in a separate section each one, and inserted in the draft when more or less complete and agreed. By the previous experience, I am a bit concerned about letting everybody freely edit the draft (honestly, I´m very affraid it would lead us to even major confrontation and possibly edit wars on drafts). FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
What I understood, and that I still defend, is to start working sections (all, from draft, and the ones possibly added), but preferably in a separate place for each section. Resuming, working on each section for the draft, in separate sections for each section here. Gggrrrrr... I´m not sure if I´m clear, I hope you all understood. FkpCascais (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For instance, would you allow me to open sections to discuss? I would like to have open the one regarding the template. But we should actually discuss about it, not disperse and finish talking on third things and forgeting about it, as unfortunatelly happend on my first attempt. Would you suport me and help me on that please, Sunray? FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Facilitating discussions like this requires a high degree of tolerance and neutrality. It also requires concision. If the other participants agree to you doing it, I would support that. However, Nuujinn has made a good start and I think that he should be given a chance to continue. I will assist as needed. Sunray (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but I´m not asking for interromping what we started, on the oposite, I fully support the discussions there. Basically, I´m just asking to open one on the issue of the template, so we get it going, as well. I would even like to hear everyones opinion on that first, and only then we could see alternatives for trying to work the best solution for it. Instead of me leading it, I would rather prefer having everybody participating responsably (after all, we are not that many). And you could point us directions to follow whenever you feel necesary. I´m just giving ideas and touths. I just touth in perhaps having that issue opened and slowly worked simultaneously with the others, but regarding all about it (if, who and how lead it and when), I´ll accept whatever you and all other participants find convenient. FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on JJG's draft text

Having been pushed into these comments by his disgraceful remarks against me (I had held JJG in the highest regard, and had praised him highly for his work for Wikipedia), I no longer feel any need to continue any kind of pretence. The whole text written by JJG is a whitewash, a calumny against history, and a typical example of the revisionism that seeks to disguise open collaboration with the Nazis as "something very complicated". Meh. Pathetic. The fallback position for all apologists for collaborators is "Oh, it was very complicated". I've come across this again and again. So I reject JJG's text in its entirety for what it is. A disgraceful attempt to rewrite history. And I will not take part in the voting section above because Wikipedia should be based on sources, not voting. So this is where the ideal crumbles. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. JJG, as a participant in this debate, has accordingly written-up a text that pushes a specific POV. The clever part here was that the text is indeed mostly supported by sources, but ignores or whitewashes virtually anything negative those sources have to say about Draža Mihailović and his Chetniks. So most of the bare info is correct, once you strip it of the biased package, but you still do have misrepresentation by omission.
In addition to this, the draft focuses exclusively on those sources which do not extensively cover the facts about Chetnik collaboration, thus misrepresenting the sources in general.
One absolutely crucial point: Wikipedia does not function as a democracy, but instead strives to represent sources. Science is not a democracy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. User disagreement and/or empty polemics are meaningless. If high-quality sources state a fact, and it cannot be refuted or the source discredited - then this is taken on this project as fact, the objections of the majority to the contrary (if necessary). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
We, luckily, can sit in our houses and apartments and debate nicely or not nicely and the adherents can say "We didn't collaborate!" and a caucus can form and then as a result of that a Wikipedia article can say that "He didn't collaborate!" but the reality is, shabbily, sadly, ignobly, in fact, the vast majority of people in occupied Europe did collaborate. Of course they did. Every day. But the vast majority did so sullenly, in silence. Unlike Mihailović, who did so willingly, gladly, because he thought it would give him an advantage against the Communists. For no other reason than that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Several participants, (by my count, a strong majority), have agreed that he did collaborate. I like your statement that a majority of the occupied people of Europe collaborated. That is the context. The sense I get is that we will do better to describe what happened than to attempt to categorize it neatly. I agree that the sources will be key in sorting this out. Sunray (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very disappointed by AlasdairGreen27's reaction, and see no reason in this. As far as I can tell, I made absolutely no remarks or attacks against him, and yet he is now attacking me in the most agressive manner. If he has felt attacked by whatever I had said, then I apologize (though I have no idea for reaction). As for his remark on the fact that I would whitewash " virtually anything negative those sources have to say about Draža Mihailović and his Chetniks", well I must say that I find it baffling. Has he actually read the draft or is he just very angry, for whatever reason ? However, I find his reaction regretable and am just puzzled by it. And if he should find me "pathetic", call me an "apologist for collaborators" (what next ? "closet nazi" ?) and reject my draft "in its entirety"... well, I can live with it ! I just suggest that he calm down.

As for the argument that I "misrepresent the majority of sources"... well, is there such a thing as a "majority of sources" in this case ? From what emerges in what I have read, the problem seems to be that there is no definite, universally-recognized history of the Yugoslav front in world war II, with a lot of books being, apparently, biased, outdated and incomplete. If I had really been aiming to "lie by omission" or suppress information (wtf ?) I would have stuck to using the book of Mihailovic's French biographer Buisson, which I used only almost only for the "early/personal life" details but which I have otherwise avoided, for it is pretty much a pro-Mihailovic pamphlet with several glaring mistakes about the WWII period. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Disgraceful remarks... very disappointed..." Criticizing one another will almost always result in unmet needs. Judgements by another party often result in hurt feelings or anger. It is hard not to react sometimes, especially when one is tired. Perhaps the best way to comment on another's ideas or text is to ask open questions ("what," "how"). But it is hard to do sometimes. My question is: would those involved in this prefer to continue to deal with it, or move on? Sunray (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
But Sunray, the JJG reaction is quite mild when looking better to the (bad) intention of the criticism. Anyway, what you think if we changed the title of this chapter from "Rejection" to "Criticism" and let those participants number all the critics they find about the draft? It is somehow a middle way (or complementary) of what you proposed to keep on. FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, please no. I suggest we move on by trying to improve the article. (and I agree with FkpCascais, my reaction is mild, but this criticism [does not] irk me) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is to continue, I would like to move it to a subpage. That way the parties could go on expressing their anger and hurt feelings without disrupting the rest of the mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You could just remove this section entirely, since nothing interesting is being said here. I am not angry or hurt : I just find the whole thing completely insignificant. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic/Archive9&oldid=1078410346"