Wikipedia

Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 3

< Talk:Pavle Đurišić
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic Berane II
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

About Cohen

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Cohen to be cited for facts, opinions will be attributed in-text

1.0 out of 5 stars from http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)

In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies.

"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding".

There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic?

--Juraj Budak (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

so lots of Serbs didn't like what he had to say? Who cares? It's irrelevant here on WP.
Utter rubbish. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked by Hoare, who says he saw the manuscript and made some comments on it. Absolute unmitigated Serbian POV rot. Wake up to yourself. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • My friend, I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter. That makes me free to see and read the Serbian point of views. Needles to say that we are all obliged to respect the sacred Wikipedia rule: Neutrality. I hate to say so, but I see in your comment a strong bias. I found more negative reviews of the Cohen's book in another book reviews. It's strange to me that a dermatologist (I was informed before he was a dentist) wrote a book of such kind. Here I can accept only that John P. Maher is John P. Maher. Serb or not, does it matter?--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
An amazon review? Brb making a 5 star review. The "CCCC" is the cherry on top to this "Serbian POV rot" as Peacemaker put it. [1] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No bias. I just have a sense that an editor seeking to remove a book praised by a Cambridge don as 'very good', because it doesn't align with their point of view, is probably not interested in WP policy but probably has a POV to push. I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either. Living in Australia makes it a bit hard to vote in Croatian elections, and not having any voting rights there doesn't help. Personally, I'd like to vote in the Wiggywack council elections, but they won't let me either. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I'm not Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either, and I have to say I recall Cohen was rejected on good grounds as an unreliable source in some previous discussion or other... negative peer reviews were cited. I honestly can't remember when it was, though. -- Director (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Director, the matter was taken back to RSN by User:Juraj Budak (I had taken it there a few weeks prior and only one editor provided a view), and a consensus is still (hopefully) forming. PRODUCER and I have been belting this thing around for a while. I have found it hard to accept that Cohen appears in the bibliography of Ramet's 3Y & Hoare's G&R but it's supposedly unreliable. Mostly it is to do with Djurisic's Iron Cross, but in general Cohen's pretty unpopular with some of our fellow editors. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that he was rejected once on a talkpage, ages ago. I can't even remember where. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Operation Halyard one editor emphasized: This book is anti-Serbian and not scientific but "the easy" and sensationalist book. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Chetniks/Archive_4#Politically_Motivated_Sources also contains discussion about reliability of Cohen's work. And this section too. A comment in this section and this page too. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, editors' opinions. That is why it was brought to RSN by me, and I expect that is why Juraj did it. Just take a breath. I've asked for a formal close on the RSN discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears my request for a formal close was unsuccessful. However, I consider the consensus was that explained by Churn and change, supported by Nick-D (with reservations). I intend to continue using Cohen on the basis of Churn and change's stipulations, ie that facts are cited, opinions are attributed in-text. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Solved: The only political objective added to the article.
  Resolved

The source (JT) about agreements between Chetnik commanders in Montenegro (including Djurisic) and Italians:

  • p.210: "All this agreements involved either joint actions or independent Chetnik action against the Communist-led Partisans"
  • p.211: "The agreements also stated that the Nationalist Movement and the committee that led it had no political objectives, except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population. The concluding provision of the agreement is particularly significant: The Comittee of Nationalists of Montenegro obliges itself to undertake everything that is in its power and authority to preserve order and discipline in the country and will counteract all possible actions that could be directed against the Italian authorities."

The article quotes one sentence - the concluding provision. I think it is wrong because the source uses this sentence only to prove that Chetniks' collaboration with Italians "had no political objectives except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population". Without context of the concluding provision readers could be mislead to believe that this agreements were signed exactly because Chetniks and Djurisic had political objective to collaborate with Italians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please have another look at your comment and edit it to make the English less tortured? It hurts my brain to try to make sense of it. There are missing determiners, pronouns, conjunctions and/or adverbs. It is very hard to work out what you are trying to say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If you believe such an edit meets WP policies, make the edit. If you choose not to do that I will quite reasonably assume you do not really believe the edit is needed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I made the edit, though I don't think your comment makes much sense.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion regarding A-Class criteria (from WikiProject Serbia)

Latest comment: 12 years ago63 comments5 people in discussion
  Moved from Talk:Pavle Đurišić § WikiProject Serbia
 – Moved to present list of reasons why User:Antidiskriminator considers this article does not meet A-class criteria. Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:
  1. It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
  2. It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
  3. It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because
    1. there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
    2. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
  4. It is not stable.
  5. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN
I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a featured article, so it'll take much more than attributions of problems to delist it. That being said, all the issues you raised have been checked in a much more thorough review on FAN.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't attribute motives to me. The purpose of this section is not delisting. Please read above explanation which says: "Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.". You can also read my above comment "The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The supposedly unreliable source (Cohen) also has this review from Dr Marko Attila Hoare, formerly of the history department of Cambridge University. [2], as well as others available on Taylor & Francis (but not free unfortunately. Clearly there are serious questions about the single review produced by User:Fifelfoo at RSN given that his comments were unsupported by other RSN editors, and therefore did not even meet the minimum requirement for RSN of consensus of several editors. User:Antidiskriminator's persistent use of the comments of User:Fifelfoo in the face of contradictory views is just a simple case of WP:HEAR, and discloses a very particular POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This is no longer a talkpage, it is a list of demands where Anti even keeps a tally and continuously pushes the same already discussed and disproven nonsense. Now he has even rehashed his old review in an attempt to delist the article since his demands weren't met. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says: "Never use headings to attack other users: ...using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious" With this edit you named me in the heading. Will you please be so kind to revert yourself?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. I'll tell you what. You be so kind as to revert yourself in respect of the same policy per "Do not be critical in headings" regarding the subsection "Not comprehensive and well-researched" immediately below, and I would be glad to. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this rule which I did not know about. I renamed the section not to be critical. I sincerely apologize if you understood it as attack against you, which was never my intention. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Likewise. Section renamed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A-class criteria

No WP:RS in English (or translated into English) provided in three weeks for the remaining "unresolved" contention regarding the British

Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects three major facts which are important for placing the subject in context:

  1. Declaration of Independence of Montenegro of 12 July 1941. There is very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then "grievances against the Italians". It is declaration of independence of Montenegro issued on 12 July which "annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia" (JT p.140 of War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration). Y
  2. Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans There is one very important event which is of exceptional importance for understanding the context of relations between Chetniks (and Đurišić) and Axis powers. It is a change of British policy toward Chetniks and Partisans. Until Autumn 1942 "the chief British aid to Chetniks was ignoring the Partisans" (J.T. p. 302). "Although Yugoslav government and Mihailovic were important "as strong supporters of Karadjordjevic dynasty which the British wanted to preserve...the more immediate military considerations" were persuasive.(JT 301) British government decided to considerably change their policy " toward Yugoslav government and the Chetniks by establishing direct contact with the Partisans and extending them aid" (J.T. p 305). Moreover in June 1943 "under increased British pressure" "by far the most influential Yugoslav minister in exile" Slobodan Jovanović ("one of Mihailovic's staunchest supporters") was forced to resign.
  3. Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro Both Ramet and Tomasevich explain this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan". That was a plan to establish some kind of union state between Serbia and Montenegro. That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis. Y

All three facts are presented in the sources already used in the article, but they were somehow overlooked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

you constantly refer to something being "very important" or "most important" or even "much more important". I'm afraid that this is in your mind (or POV) unless you have a source that says it is "very, most, much more" important. Where exactly does Tomasevich say that these issues were of "exceptional" importance or "very important" as far as Djurisic's motivations were concerned? As far as the last point is concerned, you need a page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Page 134.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This is total misrepresentation of the source. I have the page open on my desk, and p. 134 says nothing about Djurisic, and the only mention of Montenegro is the following about halfway down the page "On July 13 fighting broke out in Montenegro,...". At the bottom of the page, the discussion of what the involvement of nationalists was in the uprising is about Serbia, not Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
link to the page number 134 --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
ah, Ramet. Why didn't you say, I assumed Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I did say " this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan""--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
And where does Tomasevich explain this plan? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Page 222. Tomasevich explains plans for 'Greater Serbian Federation' (consisting of Serbia, Montenegro, Sandžak and possibly Eastern Bosnia) among other things to explain presence of the Serbian Volunteer Corps in Sandžak and why Djurisic "owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić". You already used this page and particular paragraph as source in the article. You probably overlooked it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I - Declaration of Independence of Montenegro

Solved:Information about uprising being triggered by declaration of independence added to the article

According to Antidiskriminator, supposedly "There is very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then "grievances against the Italians"." Where on p. 140 of Tomasevich 2001 does it mention Djurisic? It doesn't mention him at all, actually. It explicitly says that "The Italians had good reason to be concerned about dissatisfaction among the people." and "The following day, July 13, the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist but most strongly nationalist, joined in." The article says "In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organize themselves into the Chetniks, and former Yugoslav Army officers, some of whom had recently been released from prisoner-of-war camps. The rebels seized control of small towns and villages in the early phase of the uprising". The article is entirely consistent with the source, there is no mention of the declaration being "very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then (sic) "grievances against the Italians"." The only use of the term "important" by Tomasevich on that page is to state (referring to Montenegro) that "Most importantly, it had a strong Communist Party organisation." Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You again overlooked something important. You wrote almost whole paragraphs about grievances and supported it with the pages which does not mention Djurisic at all (p 138-140). Including page 140.
You used page 140 two times in the article's references. Page 140 does not have to mention Djurisic if it is used to support the context of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
you have completed failed to show that this information is much more important than the grievances, or very important, or even important. Tomasevich does not say that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. "Fact picking" is "often the main tool of a coatrack article". Jozo Tomasevich considered this event was important. He even described it in his work, right before description of the uprising. He wrote a whole paragraph about: - The declaration of independence of Montenegro issued on 12 July which "annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia". Then he continued with: "The following day, July 13, the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist but most strongly nationalist, joined in." Without information about this event the context of uprising and involvement of nationalists (including Đurišić) would not be complete.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll ignore the wikilawyering rot about WP:COATRACK, which is really insulting given the amount of time and effort put into this article. Just because it doesn't reflect how you want the man portrayed doesn't mean it's a coatrack. As far as this is concerned, I went back to the sources and have added in some material from Pavlowitch which indicates that the revolt was triggered by the proclamation. As far as I am concerned the matter is resolved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

II - Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans

No response in three weeks

According to Antidiskriminator, "There is one very important event which is of exceptional importance for understanding the context of relations between Chetniks (and Đurišić) and Axis powers". Who says that? In what source does it say that this event had any impact on Đurišić? Particularly considering he was one of the first to make a collaboration agreement with the Italians, which happened way before the British even considered switching their support, much less when they actually did cut off the Chetniks. This is straight out unsupported WP:SYNTH. Your constant unsourced POV pushing on this talkpage is disruptive and tendentious. Please stop it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, can you clarify this? I have not seen any evidence from you that the British change of heart regarding the Chetniks had any impact on Djurisic? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

III - Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro

Solved:Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro and Đurišić's role added to the article.
  Resolved

Jozo Tomasevich in his work "Četnici u drugom svjetskom ratu 1941-1945" on page number 312 emphasizes and confirms important role of Pavle Djurisic in the military arrangements of the plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Please don't call me chief.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is Serbo-Croatian version of "Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9." page 349. You probably overlooked that Djurisic "played an important role" in this arrangements .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Ramet. Antidiskriminator, you have misrepresented Ramet in respect of page 134 of The Three Yugoslavias. Above you stated that "Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro Both Ramet and Tomasevich explain this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan". That was a plan to establish some kind of union state between Serbia and Montenegro. That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis.". What you have done there is blatant WP:SYNTH. There are two paragraphs on page 134 under the heading "The Neubacher Plan". The first paragraph relates to the plan itself, and ends by saying that "Neubacher's proposals died on Hitler's desk". The following paragraph talks about the active role that Neubacher continued to play in both Zagreb and Belgrade, including fighting against the persecution of Serbs in the NDH and the release of Djurisic. Nowhere on that page does Ramet link Neubacher's plan with the release of Djurisic. When you recognise that Ramet does not in fact support your contention that "That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis", then I will look at the other references you have indicated support your contention. I see no reason why I should spend time checking every use you make of sources, find that in several cases they do not in fact support your contentions, then continue to engage with you about one of your myriad issues with this article when you regularly resort to WP:SYNTH to try to get your "important/major/most important issues" incorporated into this article. This behaviour is in bad faith, disruptive and wasteful of my time and energy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Read again what I wrote and sources I pointed to. You probably again overlooked that JT in his "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9." page 349 emphasized that Djurisic "played an important role" in this arrangements .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't overlook it. I refuse to even re-read it until you accept that your use of Ramet to support your assertion is WP:SYNTH. That's it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. There is no misinterpretation. My assertion that "this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan"" is supported by the source written by Ramet, p.134.
  • Yes, there is one sentence of my comment that is not directly supported by the sources I presented. That Đurišić was released from prison because of this plan. Tomašević and everything that happened after his release indirectly support that assertion.
Your comment is another fallacy. The point was not if Đurišić was released because of this plan. The point was that:
No, actually, you are now changing your point about what Ramet supports. You clearly attempted to assert that "That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison...". Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. My point was not Djurisic's release. Your reply is another straw man fallacy which are so frequent in your comments that it could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern.
  • My point is clearly presented in section "Not comprehensive and well-researched" where I emphasized that "this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects three major facts which are important for placing the subject in context:...3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro" - The article neglects this plan. It is not even mentioned in the article although in case of Montenegro some military arangements have been made and in those arrangements important role had major Pavle Đurišić. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Whatever your point is, either edit the article to rectify what you consider to be a deficiency, or cease using this talk page as a forum for your views on Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessary harsh and contains fallacy and unjustified accusations. It could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern. I again politely ask you: Please don't continue with this kind of behavior.
  • Don't attribute views to me. I did not present my views on Djurisic. On the contrary. I carefully explained what is written in the same sources already extensively used in this article. It is Jozo Tomasevich's view that Djurisic had important role in military arrangements of the plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I did (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IV - Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces

There is a fourth major fact neglected by this article but very important for placing the subject in context:

  • Neglected major fact number 4: (Based on Jozo Tomasevich in "Contemporary Yugoslavia", page 94 or work of Jozo Tomasevich "Yugoslavia during the Second World War", page 94): "....since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western....In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they (Germans) wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič."

Of course, since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western and thus in the case of a Western Allied landing on the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia would surely have turned their arms against the Germans and Italians, it was necessary for the Axis powers to have this possibility in mind and keep a certain number of Italian and German troops in readiness for it. However, the Italians and the Germans never saw eye to eye on policy toward the Chetniks. From the German- Italian discussions of this problem one can draw the conclusion that the Italians wanted to use the Chetniks as much as possible to dispose of the Partisans, after which they planned to dispose of the Chetniks. The Germans, on the other hand, until the Italian collapse and apart from the "live and let live" agreements in eastern and northwestern Bosnia, chose not to collaborate with the Chetniks and instead followed a policy of disarming them. In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič.

— Jozo Tomasevich

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you but him allowing his troops to be disarmed without a fight is actually further indicative of collaboration, rather than the opposite. This is the customary reply given to enemy troops asking you to "lay down your weapons" :). But if they're not your enemy.. if you're working for them.. -- Director (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
They were captured too. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Per my response to the same discussion on Case Black, why don't you draft a couple of sentences and discuss them here? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Case Black discussion is connected only to fourth major fact neglected by this article. I am only reviewing this article and don't have intention to edit it but to help improving it during the review.
Until this matter is properly covered this article should be properly tagged. Would it be better to use Template:Coverage or Template:Incomplete? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an entirely minor point. And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration. Instead of tagging the article, put forward a proposal as to how you would wish this covered, but please be careful not to insinuate this is in any way an act of "resistance" (since I assume that's what you're aiming at). -- Director (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Director. Either tag would be completely inappropriate. It would be WP:UNDUE to tag this article on the basis of such a point of little overall weight or importance. This article has been recently reviewed and is FA. Your little review to make sure it meets your personal standards means little to anyone other than yourself. If you are not interested in editing or improving the article so it addresses your concerns, drop the WP:STICK. Your behaviour on this talk page is disruptive and tendentious. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
@Director."And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration."
Incorrect. He was not only forced to surrender his weapons but also captured and transported to prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course he was "forced", I'm sure he didn't exactly like it much. The point is he did so peacefully and none of this is indicative of resistance activity (you'll note the Partisans, who were Axis enemy combatants, did not surrender their arms). The man won the Iron Cross for heaven's sake.. -- Director (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No. The man was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Says who? -- Director (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Jozo Tomasevich. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, there's no question that the German offensives Weiss and Schwartz were all because of the possibility of an Allied landing in the Balkans. All German activities at that time were all motivated by the necessity to secure the area. However: the point is that he allowed his troops to be peacefully disarmed - that is indicative of collaboration. If he was imprisoned for the time being he was released afterwards and so distinguished himself in service of the Germans they decorated him. You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero" for being arrested and thrown in prison by his masters - for a brief while. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Please respect WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please stop attributing motives to me.
Djurisic escaped from prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I commented on content, on your position, not on you yourself. Please keep your wikilawyering to yourself. -- Director (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero"" - You attributed motive to me. Please don't do that. Please respect WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I do sincerely apologize. Please provide a source for Đurišić's escape and the whole story (with page numbers). And please try not to use some Serbian society and/or a Chetnik voivoda for a source. -- Director (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It is written in the article: "He escaped three months later". Do you think that article is not properly sourced?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Which article? Either way, what I said stands: the point is that he allowed his troops to be peacefully disarmed - that is indicative of collaboration. Whether he was imprisoned or not, he soon re-instated himself in the service of the Germans. Being imprisoned is not in itself an act of resistance. -- Director (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
This article.
No your point does not stand. He was not only disarmed. He was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about "he was disarmed", yes I'm sure someone took away his pistol when he was arrested :). When I say "disarmed", I refer to his troops, who were disarmed by the Germans without any kind of struggle. That alone suggests collaboration, not resistance.. seeing as how there wasn't any "resistance". You shoot at the enemy, you don't give them your weapons if they ask you. I'm still waiting to see a source for his (quote) "capture" and daring escape.
You appear to think that "because of the plans for Western Allied landing" refers to his plans for a Western Allied landing? :D Please read the sources, Antidiskriminator, so you might reduce the number of misunderstood/misrepresented sources you're posting here on a daily basis. It will also save the time of those who then must explain the source. What is meant by that is that the Germans were in general acting to secure the Balkans region due to the possibility of an Allied landing. They had orders to disarm all the Chetniks because of the possibility, but generally didn't. They did disarm the troops of poor hapless Đurišić, though (probably because he was their own man, and not the Italians').
That's about as much effort I'm willing to spend explaining sources here. 1) He was imprisoned - if sourced, that alone is not indicative of collaboration, but it isn't an act of "resistance" either. 2) His troops were disarmed without resistance - that suggests close collaboration with the enemy. For comparison, please note that it would be impossible to peacefully disarm a Partisan unit. My point stands. Nothing here is indicative of his "resistance", if anything it represents further evidence of his collaboration with the enemy.
Most importantly: from now on whenever you bring up an issue you please bring forth your suggestion for specific changes to the article. This is not a forum where one chats about various abstract subjects with other people. Specific changes to the article at each objection, please. What you're doing here now is textbook disruption - and it must stop. -- Director (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. This article is FA. It is not being reviewed by anyone (not even you, although I doubt you will accept that you don't have some special status). If you believe that on the basis of the "unresolved" points you have listed on this talkpage there is sufficient grounds to question the FA status of this article, bring it on. If not, I have no intention of further pandering to your never-ending questioning of every line when you have pointedly refused to edit the article yourself, despite clearly having access to the sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Officers and commissars - Pavlowitch p76

Latest comment: 12 years ago46 comments5 people in discussion

The text reads

Differences between officers (still mostly uniformed, and in command) and communists (who were organising the movement, and placing their 'politikoms'-political commissars) had appeared almost immediately...

This text supports the material that says

Officers were in command with the communists doing the organisation and providing political commissars

. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

People's Liberation Movement - NOP, not uprising in which nationalists and peasants were not subordinated to communist organization or commissars. On the same page it is written:
  • "Carried on the surge that was difficult to control, the officers" were not able to challenge communists' organisation while the communists were not able to find enough officers whom they can control"

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, that is not what the text says. That material is in the context of the uprising, which would be obvious to "Blind Freddy" because the next line relates to Djilas (a communist) trying to get Stanisic (a nationalist) to accept overall military command. Of what? The uprising of course. This is prior to 18 July. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent sources, Antidiskriminator. This isn't the first time. -- Director (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is what Pavlovic actually says about uprising in his work:
  1. page 75: "Officers assumed command while communists did their best to inject some organisation and to take over...." - Yes, they did they best to take over. And failed to take over.
  2. "The insurgents had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans. - The insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists. They "had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans".
  3. The main commanders to emerge were Colonel Bajo Stanišić, ... Major Đorđe Lašić .... and Captain Pavle Đurišić." - The article does not mention that Pavle Đurišić was one of the main commanders of the uprising. That is very important information which should be presented to the readers both in the lede of the article and in the main body of the article. Milovan Djilas and his mention of Djurisic's distinction during the battle of Berane is unclear and misleading.
  4. "Albanian and Muslim irregulars from border areas ... moved ahead and secured their (Italian) flanks... In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned, and the irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a while." - The article does not mention hundreds executed inhabitants and those who were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars. Emphasizing that Đurišić and his Chetniks were "impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region" without presenting information about conduct of Muslim and Albanian irregulars is against NPOV and could mislead readers.
  5. "Local notables wanted resistance to be continued only against those Muslims who were acting against their Christian neighbours. Embittered communists turned against peasant mentality, as only ideologically committed continued to fight." - Again proof that insurgents were not subordinated to communists.
  6. "Having heard of Ustasha and German terror most people felt that it was safer to tolerate the Italians, such as they were. Armed groups " - To tolerate Italians because have heard of Ustasha and German terror. I think it might be valuable information for better understanding the context of Djurisic's collaboration with Italians.
  7. The main aim of the rebellion had been achieved once the setting up the client state of Montenegro had been stopped. - I had to go trough Golgotha before first shy information about 12 July declaration of independence of Montenegro was added to the article.
  8. Yes you are right about Djilas. "Djilas tried and failed to get Stanisic to accept overall military command" - which is another proof that Stanisic and his nationalists were not organized by communist commissars.
"The more you get involved with this article"? Lol. You have written screeds of text on this talkpage in 203 edits in just over a month. Give me a break. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't laugh at me. The purpose of my comments was reviewing and improvement of the article. The purpose of many of 236 comments you(148), DIREKTOR(35) and PRODUCER(43) wrote on this talkpage was to write unjustified accusations and personal attacks on me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If there has been some hostility towards you it was caused by inappropriate behavior on your part. Provide reliable sources (don't start a never-ending discussion about each unreliable source you bring forward), read said sources carefully (do not force others to explain the sources to you), and bring forward proposals for specific article changes (so that the discussion does not become meaningless and never-ending), acknowledge when sources are against you (do not repeatedly push the same unsupported changes), do not start a dozen sections every day, try and make an actual contribution from time to time - and generally try not to give the impression that you're just here pushing an agenda.
People do not appreciate being repeatedly and continuously badgered day in and day out in the manner described above. All that said, I recall more than enough rude personal attacks by you yourself - so its best not to go with the whole "I'm a victim" approach. The best way to put a stop to the unpleasantness on this talkpage - from both sides - is to adopt a professional and fact-based attitude. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed to take over

No response in three weeks

I will attempt to address these supposed issues one by one. Firstly, you say "And failed to take over". That is original research or at best inappropriate synthesis. Where is the source that says that the communists failed to take over? Pavlowitch does not say that. I am not saying that they did, or that they did not, I am saying that Pavlowitch does not say the communists failed to take over, so he cannot be used to support that wording. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I said that "communists failed to take over".
No, I did not use Pavlowich to support my statement that communists "failed to take over". That is bluesky assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Then what source are you using? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
No, but you need to cite that the communists failed to take over though if you want me to include it in the article (given that you yourself do not actually edit it). Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary. You should not write several sentences which mislead readers about the relation between communists and nationalists in the uprising although reliable sources, events and common sense do not support such assertion. I already explained my position on this issue with this edit and don't have much to add to it right now. Nothing you wrote convinced me that I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists

No response in three weeks

The source does not say this. Again, this is your original research or inappropriate synthesis. What source says that "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists"? Pavlowitch does not say that. I am not saying that they were, or that they were not, I am saying that Pavlowitch does not say "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists", either explicitly or by direct implication, so he cannot be used to support that wording. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • What you try to do now is straw man falacy. You want to create illusion that I said that Pavlowitch actually wrote the following words:
    • "And failed to take over"
    • "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists"
    • "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists" - second time
Then you successfully proved that Pavlovitch did not wrote above mentioned words without ever having actually refuted my original position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Then what source are you relying on? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I explained my position with this edit and don't have anything to add to it now. You are free to disagree with me but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with my position. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Then as far as I am concerned it is resolved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Djurisic was one of the main commanders that emerged during the uprising

This point is accepted and has been added to the text of the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Muslim and Albanian irregulars

Resolved

{{3O}}

I'm afraid that this point is a complete misrepresentation of the text, and given what has occurred in the past on this talkpage, I consider it is reasonable to suspect that your selective quoting is intentionally misleading. It is clear from the context here [3] that it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people, and that the "irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a time". The text does not support the idea that the irregulars killed anyone. They may have, and in fact they probably did, but again, that is not what Pavlowitch says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the source does not support your claim that "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people". I think you violated WP:AGF when you unjustifiedly accused me here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, from the context it is absolutely clear that there is a distinction of the actions of the Italians and the actions of the irregulars. Anti, we assume good faith initially, we don't follow it blindly. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Who are "we"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that, you need to work on your English comprehension. Blind Freddy could work that out. Your misrepresentation is crystal clear and my accusation is completely justified. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I will ask for a third opinion if source supports your claim that "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
3O is supposed to be for when only two editors are involved, but feel free, I'm looking forward to the response. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I admit I forgot about PRODUCER's comment. Probably because I was not certain if he supported your opinion or mine. If that is a problem then I can withdraw my request for 3O.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite that fact, I have no issue with it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
however, your 3O request is rather one-sided, and does not reflect what the discussion is about. You originally said

"Albanian and Muslim irregulars from border areas ... moved ahead and secured their (Italian) flanks... In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned, and the irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a while." - The article does not mention hundreds executed inhabitants and those who were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars. Emphasizing that Đurišić and his Chetniks were "impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region" without presenting information about conduct of Muslim and Albanian irregulars is against NPOV and could mislead readers."

ie you are attempting to assert (due to misunderstanding or by selectively quoting the source to leave out the Italians) that the source says that "hundreds of inhabitants were executed and 10,000-20,000 were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars". In turn, I have asserted that is an incorrect reading of the text, not only on commonsense grounds (ie how would the irregulars have interned that number of inhabitants?), but because you have either misunderstood or selectively quoted what the source says. The 3O should not be about

Disagreement on whether or not this work supports the claim "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people"

Instead the 3O should be about your original contention that the source says that "hundreds of inhabitants were executed and 10,000-20,000 were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars". If you do not correct the biased 3O I will withdraw my agreement to be involved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is your interpretation of the source "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people". I disagreed with your interpretation and requested third opinion if your interpretation of the source is correct. There is nothing biased in my 3O request.
  • The point of my comment in above section was that source emphasize that In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned. Albanian and Muslim irregulars from Montenegro participated in this process. Does article mention burned villages, executed inhabitants or 10,000—20,000 interned people? No. That is overlooked but memory of Albanian and Muslim irregulars on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of part of Ottoman Empire is not because it was necessary to justify their collaborationism. And that is perfectly allright. But when it comes to presenting the context for activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks then the article fails to present it. That is misleading and against NPOV. I am sure that information about "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" is not less important for the context of the events than memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I repeat that was not the point of your comment, which was clearly to ascribe the executions and internments to the irregulars. Once again, you move the goalposts when you are wrong, but never admit it. I am happy to agree to include the information about the burning, executions and internments, but my edit will not indicate that it was the irregulars that did the executions and internments, as the source only says that they were permitted to continue looting and burning, and is silent about their involvement (or not) in the executions and internments, which the source clearly ascribed to the Italians (in fact to the orders of Biroli). Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  Response to third opinion request:
Hi. I will keep this short. It does not appear to me that the source in question can be used to support a claim as to whether it was primarily the irregulars or the Italian army that did the majority of the razing and looting. If there are no other sources for this contentious claim, it can only be noted that there were both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregular army involved in the operation. Gigs (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Does article mention that "hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" in this action of both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregulars? No. I still believe that this information is very important for the context of activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks. Much more important than justification of irregulars' actions with memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Then edit it boldly, I'm not your editing slave. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about you not being my "editing slave" is unnecessary harsh, like many of your comments to me. Taking in consideration that I significantly contributed to improvement of this article's quality and that 3o proved that your accusations about "complete misrepresentation of the text" which could be "intentionally misleading" were unjustified I don't see any real reason for this kind of repeated behavior, which could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern.
List of Antidiskriminator's contributions to the quality of the article (only completely or partially resolved issues).
Issue Explanation Resolved (yes/no)
Lede improvement Lede spoke only about his life during WWII. That did not correspond with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Yes
Lede starts with 1942. What did Đurišić do in 1941? There was no pre-1941 information in the lede Yes
they met their downfall in May 1945 It was unclear what happened to Djurisic's followers Yes
There is a picture which could be beneficial to commemoration section An useful picture was proposed to be added to commemoration section Yes
Missing context of the relation between Djurisic and partisans There is a half of the sentence which mentions some atrocities committed by partisans in Kolasin. Such important information is presented in half of the sentence. Without any context. Yes
Voivode The article did not mention Djurisic's title of voivode Yes
Report of the International Commission Statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine and quoted in 1914 report of the International Commission were used to support assertions about 1941 events Yes
Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror were overlooked in the source and the text of the article only mentioned 5000 refugees out of 25000 who were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Generally, major grievances of Montenegrins against Italians were not properly explained. Yes
When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943? The article presented assertion about Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November. He actually reached Belgrade in November but was captured in Serbia in October. Yes
To Slovenia or to Greece? The article presented wrong information that Đurišić "argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia". In fact Đurišić had wanted to withdraw through Albania to Greece. Yes
Karađorđe's star The article did not present information that Đurišić was awarded with Karađorđe's star Yes
One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks Information about one of the aims of Case Black being disarming of all Chetniks in Montenegro was overlooked in the source already extensively used in the article. Yes
NOVA's proposal In 2011 one Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) proposed building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. Yes
Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising The full explanation of the distinction between communists and nationalists was overlooked and article only presented information about intention of Chetniks to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region without explanation that Communists wanted to continue with the revolution by turning against their class enemies. This is basically corrected with this diff. Yes
July uprising The article did not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising. His involvement is mentioned later, but the information about Đurišić being one of three "main commanders" of the uprising to emerge is overlooked although it is presented in source extensively used in the article. Partial
Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists The existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. The explanations presented in the sources already used in this article are overlooked. Partial
Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 1) Declaration of Independence of Montenegro, 2) Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans , 3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, 4) Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces Partial
First uprising against Italians - then Itallian occupation of Montenegro The chronology of the sections is wrong. Partial
Muslim and Albanian irregulars Does article mention that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" in this action of both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregulars? Not completely. I still believe that this information is very important for the context of activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks. Much more important than justification of irregulars' actions with memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire. Partial
I politely ask to please be so kind not to continue with this behavior.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
and I politely ask you to edit the article itself if you consider your concerns to be legitimate. I have no intention of reading your TLDR post about how good you are for this article. Either edit in article space like the rest of us or be ignored. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I added information that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
During discussion in this section you emphasized "Blind Freddy work that out" (diff). I did not know who is Blind Freddy until I checked now and saw that in Australian English (your userpage says that you live in Australia) it means (link):

imaginary incapacitated person held up as an archetype of incapacity

This was not the first time you compared me with Blind Freddy (diff and diff). I apologize if wiktionary is wrong and if "Blind Freddy" does not actually mean "imaginary incapacitated person held up as an archetype of incapacity", but nevertheless I would appreciate if you please would not compare me with Blind Freddy anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I shall cease using the vernacular when interacting with you. That is a turn of phrase used in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes. While wiktionary is correct in a literal sense, it does not reflect the context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposed "proof" that insurgents were not subordinated to communists

Once again, the source does not say this. Again, this is your original research or inappropriate synthesis. What source says that "insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists"? Pavlowitch does not say that. I am not saying that they were, or that they were not, I am saying that Pavlowitch does not say "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists", either explicitly or by direct implication, so he cannot be used to support that wording. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. I think WP:Original Research policy applies to article space on the first place. Explanations on talk pages sometimes can involve in-depth arguments based on interpretation of reliable sources.
  2. There was no need to create five separate sections in less than one and half hours (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with almost the same text as number 1) just to write comments about issues discussed in other already existing sections.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you are in a position to be casting stones at other editor's who create new sections... Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Berane II

Latest comment: 12 years ago38 comments5 people in discussion
  Unresolved

Besides sources presented in this section there is additional sources which supports the assertion that Djurisic captured Berane during uprising:

  • "le capitaine Pavlé Djurisic prit la ville de Berané et s'empara du chef de régiment avec toutes ses troupes" (translation: Captain Pavle Djurisic took the town of Berane and seized the regimental commander with all his troops) - Trahison Au Sommet Dans Les Maquis Yougoslaves, Dragan Sotirović, 1972
  • "o come il capitano Pavle DjuriSic, che dopo aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane nel luglio 1941 si era assicurato una zona d'influenza nel Montenegro centro-orientale" (translation:or as the captain Pavle Djurisic, who after successfully led the attack on the garrison of Berane in July 1941 had secured an area of influence in central and eastern Montenegro) - L'occupazione italiana della Iugoslavia, 1941-1943; Francesco Caccamo, 2008
  • "In the July uprising of 1941, Pavle Djurishich organized a blockade of Berane against the Italian occupier, during which he distinguished himself. After intense fighting, the Italians surrendered. Thus Berane was liberated by Vasojevici patriots." - Diverse forces in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945; Bosko S. Vukcevich - 1990--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know it is entirely possible. July 1941 was well before the start of Chetnik collaboration. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes alright, you've made your point. He'd have to be a pretty extreme collaborator to have begun cooperation with the Axis as early as July 1941. It took even Pećanac until mid August (though please don't quote the magazine of the "Serbian Historical-Cultural society Njegoš in America" anymore, lol). -- Director (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The only point he's made is his incredible willingness to continue his POV pushing in an endless cycle of dumping ridiculous and dubious sources on this talkpage, this time under the guise of "Berane II". None of the sources are even remotely scholarly. The Dragan M. Sotirović source, a Chetnik commander, and the Serbian Historical-Cultural Society Njegoš source in particular exemplify this absurd length of POV pushing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Please be so kind to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks and "Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes your sources are something of a riot for their bias, but I'm reasonably certain Đurišić did, in fact, take Berane early in the war - if I recall correctly with Partisan help. Before he turned traitor completely, that is. -- Director (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am willing to discuss the Francesco Caccamo citation though, what is the reliability of this book? Anyone do Italian? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little rusty, but yeah, I can read the thing. Yes, Đurišić distinguished himself in the battle at Berane. Here's Milovan Đilas who, while criticizing Đurišić, makes a note of his exploits at Berane [4]. Not the most neutral of sources as such, but I think we can be certain he would not exaggerate the exploits of the Chetniks. The July 13 uprising was a joint undertaking by both nationalists and Partisans in Montenegro, and Đilas himself (a Partisan commander) was an important actor. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Djilas is already in the article as a source for Djurisic 'distinguishing himself' at Berane. But does it say he "captured Berane during the uprising"? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Caccamo above does say he "successfully led an attack" on Berane ("aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane"). I think we can assume he took it and distinguished himself in so doing. -- Director (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If that's what it says, I'll stick to what it says. We quickly get on a slippery slope on this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Resolved, the sense of the Caccamo and Monzali quote (thanks Director) which appears to be "above board" has been incorporated into the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The point was that he captured Berane from Italians. That is very important fact that should be clearly presented to the readers, both in the lead section and the body of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Then you need a WP:RS for it, not the scribbling of a former Chetnik. It appears the consensus is that you don't have one at present. Until you do... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Consensus? After DIREKTOR wrote: "Caccamo above does say he "successfully led an attack" on Berane ("aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane"). I think we can assume he took it and distinguished himself in so doing." you are the only one who insists on more sources that Djurisic captured Berane. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of consensus, its a matter of WP:V. Any challenged claim must be supported by a reliable source that directly supports it, that's one of the most basic pillars of Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, Peacemaker is right. To claim that he "captured" Berane is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If he chooses to challenge that claim no amount of opposition can have us include it. Caccano says Đurišić "successfully led the attack on the garrison of Berane in July 1941 and secured an area of influence in central and eastern Montenegro", he doesn't say specifically that he captured the town. Such a phrasing does imply two things the author does not: 1) that Berane was in fact captured, and 2) that Đurišić is responsible for the victory. There's no reason not to use the exact wording of the source. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No. It would be WP:OR only if "no reliable, published sources exist" for this assertion. There are many sources which support this assertion. None which denies it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. There isn't a reliable published source that says "Đurišić captured Berane". We've not seen one. Provode it, please, or cease making unsourced claims. -- Director (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You and Peacemaker67 estimate reliability of the sources, depending on their POV. When it was necessary to insert assertion that Pavle Đurišić was "war criminal" whose memorial should be destroyed, it was enough to use web sources on Serbo-Croatian language. But when someone presents English language scholarly sources written by contemporary historians that Đurišić was the "hero of the uprising", one of the "three main commanders", ... then Milovan Đilas, is preferred. For minor song issue reliability of sources is questioned because some of the sources were written by former Chetniks, but neutrality of Milovan Đilas is not questioned for such major issue like role of Đurišić in the uprising although Đilas was "a key figure in the Partisan movement during World War II". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ex-Chetniks(!), and some nonsense "Serbian Society in America", are not reliable sources. -- Director (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Er no. I don't base anything on POV, always on reliability. The websites used for the memorial section were challenged during GA (I think), and passed. Please get your facts straight. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. This page contains GA review. Nobody challenged websites used for memorial section. Even if they were challenged and passed that only confirms my point. Glas Javnosti passed as reliable source. It is still listed among the sources for this article. Why do you still claim there are no reliable sources for assertion that Pavle Đurišić captured Berane?
  • You are main contributor of Kosta Pećanac article which contains many important assertions referenced with Glas Javnosti web site. Let me remind you that you nominated this article for GA. But when I presented the same website containing interview with historian who confirms the assertion of many other sources: that Pavle Đurišić captured Berane ("Pavle Đurišić bio oslobodilac Berana" - transl.: Pavle Đurišić liberated Berane) you claim that the source is not reliable. If you extensively use one source but reject it as unreliable only in cases it does not support you POV then your estimation about the reliability of the source depends on the POV it supports. Therefore I will try to get opinion of uninvolved editors about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." For matters such as a memorial controversy Glas Javnosti can be used while for other things such as the great claim that he "liberated" Berane it is unacceptable. The same goes for the Pecanac article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Glas Javnosti was used to explain how one editor estimate a weight of the claim. I am concerned that it depends on its POV because:
  • when it comes to claims with criticism of Đurišić - lightweight sources (referring to Đurišić as "war criminal") are completely acceptable.
  • but when it comes to "good" things, such as struggle against Axis and capture of Berane - extraordinary sources are requested and opinion of historian with PhD in History is rejected as source just because it is published in Glas Javnosti. The same Glas Javnosti is extensively used by the same editor in article about Kosta Pećanac. In first two sections and half of the third section of that article Glas Javnosti is the only source covering the first 33 years of Pecanac's life (full of important assertions about his early life, struggle for Macedonia and Balkan Wars). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The statement that he is a "war criminal" is an opinion that is clearly attributed to SUBNOR. It regards the memorial controversy and appears no where else in the article. You on the other hand wish to present GJ as a reliable source for his WWII activity sections for which it simply isn't. "Important assertions"... no, simply no. The important assertions regard his rise to prominence in WWI and his WWII activity which are reliably sourced (before that he was a nobody). Again lightweight sources were used for lightweight claims. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You did not explain the difference in this editor's evaluation of reliability of GJ in comparation with Kosta Pećanac article. The same editor who refused GJ as unreliable for Djurisic article used GJ to support important assertions in Pećanac's 'war in Macedonia' and 'Balkan war' "activity sections".
  • Thank you for your very interesting explanation about use of lightweight sources in this article. When important assertions are presented within controversy section and carefully attributed they became lightweight assertions which can be supported with lightweight sources (like websites and GJ). Your comment might help resolving many non-resolved issues on this talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is pointless. If you believe you have a reliable source that's being dismissed, put it up on WP:RSN. So far that I've seen, the sources that were rejected are an ex-Chetnik leader and a "Serbian Society in America". If there are sources other than those that you're putting forward, please make that clear now. -- Director (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
When? You haven't even confirmed which source you are saying is reliable. All of them? Including the former Chetnik and the "Serbian Society in America"? Or do you accept that they cannot be considered reliable? In which case which source is it that you are using to support your assertion that Djurisic captured Berane? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The use of GJ was actually looked at in the ACR, not the GAN. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case here is another confirmation of GJ: Pavle Đurišić je uspešno komandovao ustanicima za oslobođenje Berana - Pavle Đurišić successfully commanded rebels who captured Berane.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
in English, and what is it, an op-ed, editorial or what? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I already wrote English translation (Pavle Đurišić successfully commanded rebels who captured Berane.).
This text is also written by journalist of GJ. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, what source (if any) are you saying actually says "Djurisic captured Berane" or words to that effect? Karchmar doesn't say that. He says Djurisic "took command of the attack on Berane". Can you please clarify what sources you have abandoned and what sources you assert are WP:RS and should be considered as supporting this claim? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, regardless of the claims Karchmar's work isn't exactly NPOV. Branimir Anzulovic, whom you've cited directly and indirectly, has written a rather polemic review, according to which The most vocal Draza Mihajlovic's apologist and opinionist (he doesn't deserve to be called historian) - Lucien Karchmar - even came up with a list of philosophical reasons attacking the evidence against Chetnik crimes. In his book "Draza Mihailovic and the Rise of the Chetnik Movement, 1941–1942", Lucien Karchmar devotes his study in apologizing for Draza Mihailovich's crimes and dismissing each piece of historical evidence presented as a fraud or forgery.[5].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at Karchmar regarding reliability, but so far have seen that he is used by some credible sources. The biggest issue in this article that Karchmar reflects on is the DM "instructions". Some have found his contention that they were forged by Djurisic compelling, but historians are split on it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pavle_Đurišić/Archive_3&oldid=1136373449"