Talk:Draža Mihailović

"Soviet invasion"?

Serbian President Boris Tadić with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during the celebrations for the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade (primarily) by the Soviet military.
According to entire sections of this article Tadić is supposedly thanking Medvedev for the (quote) "Soviet invasion of Serbia".

The article has been rewritten in a highly biased tone, without any connection to actual history.

The political situation of Yugoslavia at the time (September 1944) was as follows. The following was the state of affairs agreed-upon, accepted and recognized by the King of Yugoslavia, his government-in-exile, and the entirety of the Allied Powers. If anyone wishes to challenge any of these facts, please let me know, mountains sources can be provided in the blink of an eye.

• The country was named "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", as agreed-upon by the King/his government and the AVNOJ, i.e. the Partisans, by the Tito-Šubašić Agreement
• The Partisans (by that time numbering some half-a-million men) were recognized universally, both by the king and all of the Allies, as the official military of Yugoslavia.
• The Prime Minister of Yugoslavia was Josip Broz Tito, also recognized universally as such.
• Yugoslavia was at all times during the war (1941-1945) allied with the Soviet Union.

As the Red Army approached the borders of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito met with Stalin to negotiate for Red Army assistance in capturing Belgrade, as the Partisan guerrillas were neither trained, nor equipped, nor experienced in urban warfare (as opposed to the 3rd Ukranian Front). The Soviet military was allowed to enter into northern Yugoslavia to assist in the liberation of Belgrade from Nazi Germany. After they did so, they entered into the city jointly with the Partisans, held a victory parade amidst cheering Yugoslav crowds, and left peacefully off to Hungary (this of course was strange and rather unique: no rape, no pillage, and the Red Army simply walks away).

I cannot express how apalled I am that this absurd gibberish, without any connection to reality whatsoever, stands in a Wikipedia article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You were involved in previous edit wars: may you to wait 3 or 4 weeks for any discussion? I would like to rewrite all sections with related sources!--Tiblocco (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand your English. Molimte reci na našem. (Please say it in our language, I'll translate for everyone else.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, instead of trying to drive the other user to speak in other language, I am offering myself to translate you what you don´t understand, so feel welcome and tell me what is that you missunderstood in Tiblocco´s words? FkpCascais (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note here the hostile, combative tone of User:FkpCascais' post: completely without grounds, he accuses me of trying to "drive" the user into using his own language. As is typical of User:FkpCascais's posts, the user percieves an imaginary "evil scheme" on my part and responds to my posts with hostility. His manner constitutes the most extreme example of assuming bad faith.

@User:FkpCascais. Well you can't really "translate" rather bad English into English, or Serbian into Croatian, can you? Though I would appreciate it if you clarified the first sentence of Tiblocco's post for me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Will someone please give me an explanation for the "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia"? In Serbian, Croatian, English, I don't care :D. The whole section is simply someone's made-up history, a disgrace for the whole of Wikipedia's WWII coverage, and should be removed outright. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

first of all, congratulations for your Mensa IQ and best wishes: you are a genius! Again, I assure: I am Italian-sono italiano, nato e cresciuto in Italia! You are most intelligent here but you didn't check article's history: I didn't edit section "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia"! Now in my own language I confirm: considerando che la propaganda titoista accusò Draza di accordasrsi con invasori italiani e tedeschi, le fonti bibliografiche di questi accordi dovrebbero stare in Italia e Germania ma sinora neanche una sola fonte ho trovato! There is not a real single proof of Draza invented collaborating in Italian bibliographic sources!--Tiblocco (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I can only say I probably owe my smarts to the fact that I'm Italian by ancestry, two generations ago my family spoke Italian. ;D Sry for suggesting you hail from this Balkans backwater, Tiblocco. :) Please forgive my bad Italian, I'm very rusty.

I did not suggest you wrote the "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia" dribble, and I don't know who did. All I know is it has to go

@"There is not a real single proof of Draza invented collaborating in Italian bibliographic sources!"

Yes, there is. There are numerous, numerous sources of the highest quality, and direct evidence as well. (C'è. Ci sono numerose, numerose fonti di altissima qualità, e ci sono prove dirette.)

Communist propaganda was very harsh towards Draža Draža Mihailović. (Propaganda comunista ha attaccato Draža, questo è vero.) But what you must understand is that they were not completely wrong. (Ma quello che deve capire, è che essi non erano completamente errate.) Draža Mihailović did, in fact, commit several acts of collaboration. (Draza Mihailovic, infatti, ha commesso vari atti di collaborazione.)

• L'11 gennaio 1942, l'accordo principale cetnici-italiano di collaborazione è stato firmato, tra il rappresentante della 2a Armata, il capitano Angelo De Matteis, e del rappresentante cetnici Mutimir Petković. Draza Mihailović ordinò al suo rappresentante personale di ratificare l'accordo. Draza Mihailović era a conoscenza della collaborazione cetnici-Italiano, e sostenuto questa collaborazione. Più tardi, ha personalmente controllato circa 13.000 soldati cetnici nella offensiva dell'Asse (Fall Weiss). Tutto questo è solo un esempio, è possibile leggere il resto qui sotto.
• On 11 January 1942, the main Chetnik-Italian agreement of collaboration was signed, between the representative of the 2a Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis, and the Chetnik representative Mutimir Petković.Draža Mihailović ordered his personal representative to ratify the agreement. Draža Mihailović was aware of Chetnik-Italian collaboration, and supported this collaboration. Later, he personally controlled some 13,000 Chetnik troops in the Axis offensive (Fall Weiss). All this is just an example, you can some more on this issue just below.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Language

This entire article needs to be re-written/re-edited by a specialist who is a native English speaker. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.148.174 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is currently under mediation, and soon it will be replaced by a more neutral version and with correct English grammar. FkpCascais (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph on collaboration

WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies.

Time to "take the bull by the horns", and discuss the main issue of this article: the composition of the paragraph on collaboration that should be included in the lead. The lead is quite short, and can easily take another paragraph. The following are the main instances of collaboration between Draža Mihailović and the enemies of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and King Peter II. Draža Mihailović, among other things:

• offered to "place himself at the disposal" of the German occupation (28 September 1941)

The Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". The two representatives further gave the Germans their commander's guarantee for the "definitive clearing of communist bands in Serbian territory" and requested aid from the occupation forces in the form of "about 5,000 rifles, 350 machine guns, and 20 heavy machine guns"

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration

• dispatched personal representatives to authorize the main collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and Fascist Italy (Major Boško Todorović, 11 January 1942),

Mihailović was aware of and condoned the collaborationist agreements [with the Italians] into which Jevđević and Trifunović-Birčanin entered.

— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias p.148

An agreement was concluded on 11 January 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks

• personally commanded some 12,000 to 15,000 Chetnik troops in a joint military operation with German, Italian, and Croatian quisling forces (January – April 1943),

In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.236

Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić: "I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected..." Note 122: But at his trial Mihailović stated that "there the operations were led by Ostojić, because I had no time to occupy myself with these matters, since I had really come to visit my troops and get acquainted with the real state of affairs."

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.241

• ordered his subordinates to "cooperate with the German forces" (20 November 1944), adding that he himself "cannot go along because of public opinion",

On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329

• and conferred personally with the german authorities "on five different occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945." (Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329)

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

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

Now I anticipate the inevitable attack on the first-rate scholarly publications quoted above. Be aware, Fkp, that I am prepared to once again post Tomasevich and Ramet's excellent peer reviews here at any time. :) We can, of course, discuss HOW this information is to be entred into the lead, but not its veracity. Please, oh please, do not once more start posting your personal opinions on scholars and historians. Wikipedians are not obliged to take your opinion as relevant criticism of a scholarly source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

your opinion on lead paragraph on collaboration is slanted very much: this is contoversial question!--Tiblocco (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My position on this issue is based on reputable sources. I researched the matter in ver great detail. (La mia posizione su questo tema si basa su pubblicazioni di alta reputazione. Ho studiato la questione in dettaglio molto grande.) Everything I say above is a direct quote from a scholarly publication. As such, it cannot really be "slanted". (Tutto quello che dico è una citazione diretta da una pubblicazione scientifica. Come tale, essa non può davvero essere "slanted".)

@"There is not a real single proof of Draza invented collaborating in Italian bibliographic sources!"

Yes, there is. There are numerous, numerous sources of the highest quality, and direct evidence as well. You can see that just above. (C'è. Ci sono numerose, numerose fonti di altissima qualità, e ci sono prove dirette.) Not from Yugoslavia, or by communist authors, but from neutral historians and universities such as Stanford and Cambridge. (Non da Jugoslavia, o da autori comunista, ma da storici neutrali e da università come Stanford e Cambridge.) All with the very best peer reviews. (Tutti con le migliori revisioni paritari) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I read your sources but there is other problem: le fonti sono contraddittorie-sources are of opposite views by some historians who denied conclusions of other historians! Meglio impostare la sezione -Controversy- e riportare le fonti senza commenti ulteriori.--Tiblocco (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

La questione non è davvero "controversa" nei circoli accademici.

It is not really possible to dispute these facts. They are based on primary sources, such as statements by Draža Mihailović, or German intelligence reports. They are not really "conclusions", but the most simple facts. The sources that describe them are of very high quality. If you do have scholarly sources that directly contradict these facts, however, please post them. But, please, make sure these sources really do directly contradict these facts, or explain why these sources are unreliable.

Non è davvero possibile contestare questi fatti. Essi si basano su fonti primarie, come dichiarazioni di Draza Mihailovic, o di rapporti dei servizi segreti tedeschi. In realtà non sono "conclusioni", ma i fatti più semplici. Le fonti che li descrivono sono di reputazione molto alta.
Se si dispone di fonti scientifiche che contraddicono direttamente questi fatti, si prega di scrivere qui. Ma, per favore, assicurarsi che queste fonti davvero contraddicono direttamente questi fatti.

An author might proclaim, "Draža did not collaborate!", but unless there is some way to discredit these events and facts, or the secondary sources where they are posted, I can't imagine why we should pretend they are untrue. Remember: these sources have excellent reviews.

Un autore può proclamare: "Draza non collaborare!", ma se non c'è un modo per screditare questi eventi e fatti, o le fonti secondarie, dove vengono citati loro, non riesco a immaginare perché dovremmo fingere che non sono vere.

Ricorda: le fonti citate hanno ottime recensioni, e sono probabilmente le fonti migliori accademico su questo tema.

Again, sorry for my bad Italian :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I will replace "communist dicatorship" with "Yugoslav authorities". "Communist dictatorship" is a highly biased, unencyclopedic term, laden with political undertones. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

il tuo italiano è comprensibile: le fonti di Tomasevich e Ramet sono da considerare e io non le critico; "communist dicatorship" è l'espressione corretta e il tuo accanimento non lo capisco!--Tiblocco (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not use Italian for some 6 years - I'm very rusty.

• Sono sicuro che non suggerendo ignoriamo Tomasevich e Ramet? Non possiamo ignorare tali fonti di altissima qualità.
• Non sono accanimento :), ma su Wikipedia non possiamo usare una formulazione così forte e non-enciclopedico. Come ti sentiresti se ho semplicemente scritto "Draza Mihailovic era un collaboratore"? Even Nazi Germany is not described as a "fascist dictatorship".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing article with draft from Mediation

Just a head's up that in a day or so, I figure to replace the article here with the draft we worked up in the mediation in a day or so. Objections can be noted here or there, but I didn't want to surprise anyone since this will be a substantial change. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the replacement, provided the lead paragraph on collaboration is not removed in the process. Its removal would be an opposed edit on my part, i.e. I would revert that part of the edit. I may additonally expand the Collaboration section in the future, but continuous change is, after all, both inevitable and desireable on Wiki.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am totaly oposing this DIREKTOR´s attitude again blackmailing about his wishes. I am sorry, but if you see objections direktor, and if you wish to "expand" what we already know and basically why the mediation started, you should do it within the mediation where your edits can be overviewed and where in case of objections, a mediated discussion can happend. FkpCascais (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not "blackmailing" anybody. As far as I am concerned, Nuujin can enter every single word of the draft. I am just making it clear I opposse the removal in the process of this one measely paragraph. Should he remove the paragraph, I'll not be "offended", I'll not revert his entire edit, I'll just revert the removal of the paragraph. How is this blackmail?

(At this point, Fkp, you can probably stop nagging me about the mediation, I will no longer respond to that part of your post.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you are free to do whatever you feel like, respond or not, however, some trouths must be said: the entire mediation had begin because of the expansions on Chetnik collaboration subject you have done in several articles. If you wish to edit that same subject, either you return to the mediation where the issue can be discussed, or otherwise you should be prevented to make changes to that subject in the post mediation period. If the idea that you ignore the mediation, which started because of you, and afterwords you return to the same patern, goes by, I will definitelly raise the issue of useless of the mediation processes on WP. You are already announcing that you will return to your very same rethoric in future, but you refuse to discuss it under mediation where you had begin, but you disliked it and you abandoned it? Sorry my friend, but that sound very, very wrong and disruptive already. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FkpCascais and this edit is full confrontational comment, insult to users who know Yugoslav history, blatant violation of neutrality policy, insult to article's mediation. I request intervention of admins.--Tiblocco (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why you are so upset? You commented above that "There is not a real single proof of Draza invented collaborating in Italian bibliographic sources!". In fact, there are such sources. Your position, however, does not seem to depend on sources in any way. That is to say, you have been shown new sources and information, but did not change your stance in the slightest.

The paragraph is completely accurate and fully in accordance with the sources, and specifically avoids any labeling . If you have any new scholarly references contradicting anything stated in the paragraph, please post them as soon as you can. If not, I hope you do not expect Wikipedia to accept hostile inflammatory rhetoric as a "source" instead. On the rest, please feel free to report me whenever you feel you have been insulted in any way (this is where you can request intervention by admins). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: no italian source wich confirms collaborazione or alleanza but only compromesso of Draza's warriors with Italian soldiers! You are only POV pusher despite a lot of warnings by me, FkpCascais and user:Isidoradaven! I studied these scholars:

• De Rosa
• Pagnoncelli-he was a fascist officer
• Scotti-he is a communist who emigrated to Yugoslavia
• Bettiza
• Montanelli
• De Felice-most studied historian about fascist history and fascist wars
• enciclopedia Treccani
• enciclopedia Garzanti
• enciclopedia De Agostini
• enciclopedia Mondadori

if you have Italian source wich explains about alleanza of Draza's warriors with Italian soldiers, show it by scanner!--Tiblocco (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh this is just nonsense.. We are to accept only Italian sources?? Who cares if they're from Italy or not? You are completely unacquainted with both WWII Yugoslav history and Wiki policy and are showing it at every turn.

There is absolutely no question at all that Draža Mihailović's Chetniks engaged in collaboration with the Italian occupation forces. That is a very basic fact about this war, is beyond dispute, and is agreed-upon even by the other side. The Chetniks in the Italian zone were even fully incorporated into the Italian chain of command as the Milizia Volontaria Anti Comunista, I suggest you read some more about that. If you studied these "sources" I suggest you study them again, or if they do not cover these events, I suggest you find better sources (most of them are esuli dribble anyway). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Tiblocco has made an excellent point. I can´t see how a collaboration between Italians and Chetniks is never described as such in Italian sources? I mean, we are not talking about some minor undeveloped academically country, but a well known developed democracy with a long history of academical research. If Italian sources describe it as compromise, very similarly as some other scholars in Western world, we should certainly take this into account. Ramet is a weak source, anyway, and allways portraying negatively any Serb movement, no wander that is so much used by some users. FkpCascais (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

omg, grasping at straws.. Firstly, it does not matter at all whether Italian sources mention it or not (foreign language sources are actually discouraged, ready policy). Secondly, I do not see why we are supposed to take Tiblocco's word for any of this. Thirdly: word games we wil not play. Yes the Chetniks "compromised", a "compromise" with an enemy is called "collaboration". Ridiculous on several levels..

We are talking about 34,000 Chetniks within the Italian command structure conducting numerous joint operations with them. This is not really a subject open to debate, it is possible to literally bury you two in sources, from Pavlowitch, through Ramet, Tomasevich, Dixon, Edwards.. Even rubbish non-scholarly pro-Chetnik sources admit there was collaboration here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has an italian or other source that states that there was no collaboration, we'd have something to talk about. We are not obligated to find sources in any particular language. And the mere fact that Italian language sources do not address the issue directly doesn't really matter as we are not allowed to drawn conclusions--we may be personally confused as to why the issue does not come up in Italian language sources, but that's a personal issue and not something we can use to make content decisions. To draw any conclusions based on the apparent absence of sources would be a violation of OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:OR applies. Also WP:NONENG: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." And they most certainly are. So we pretty much are "obliged" to use the English-language sources.

Also I do not see why we are supposed to take the word of User:Tiblocco on this, I would not take his word on such an extravagant claim even were he not more than a bit slanted in this discussion. Frankly I don't believe a word of it. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Italian publications on WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, you have no reason whatsoever to limit the search of sources into "saying one thing, or another". Direktor has choosed to name the relation between Chetniks and Italians in the strongest way, using the word "collaboration" and I know you favour such description as well. However, few authors describe it that way, and some others choose another type of words, softer ones. Tiblocco says that the relation between them is not described as such strong words as "collaboration", but rather as "compromise", something that does go along some other sources claiming similar level of relationship rather than the accusational "collaboration". You can disagree with, you can ask for sources, but you can´t disregard the facts that other sources describe it in different words. Words are important, and we shall see how preciselly all authors describe it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FkpCacais, I formally ask that you show a diff where I tried to limit the search of sources or retract your accusation. I suggest that you do not attempt to characterize my views, feelings or opinions and limit yourself to discussions of content. My point was only that it is meaningless to ask why Italian language sources do not comment on Chetnik collaboration, as that lack does not undermine those sources which do. It's an OR issue, that all. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don´t need to enter into any exercise of interpretation when you say: "If anyone has an italian or other source that states that there was no collaboration, we'd have something to talk about". It´s crystal clear. If Tiblocco, or anyone else, finds sources describing the relation between Chetniks and Italians, we have no reason whatsoever to disregard them (your: to not discuss them) just because they do, or not, say this ot that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask again that you stop misrepresenting me. The fact that some sources do not use the term does not undermine sources that do, and, unless a source contradicts others, there's not even a dispute to make note of. Until you or someone else can bring a source that refutes other sources, there's nothing to talk about in terms of weighing the sources at hand, thus nothing to talk about. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You don´t need to talk about it if you don´t want to. That is your personal issue, not "we"´s. I supose there isn´t much of a dispute here, however the level, strenght, duration, purpuse and some other factors may be important and quite relevant. Direktor has choosed the most acusational ones, favouring the hardest rethoric, however, "we" :), are perfectly entitled to find all the sources "we" feel like and to introduce them into the discussion to see the most NPOV way of describing the facts. I don´t see anything that a good wikipedian could possibly disagree about what am I saying. FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You will do as you like, but I ask a third time that you retract your mischaracterization of my point. You are not addressing the point I raised, and you have twisted my words. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NONENG: "English sources are preferred over non-English ones". So yes, we do have good reason to disregard Italian sources as opposed to English ones.

Now this is a very important point, Fkp. The paragraph is a list of controversial acts by Draža Mihailović. Unless you can find some sources, some way to directly discredit or prove the falsehood of these acts - you cannot remove them from the article. That is to say, even if you were to find some source that harbours a number of "good" statements about Draža, it would be ok to include that, but it does not mean you can now somehow remove other facts from the article. That said, we must remember that you never ever posted a single solitary source in this discussion. The cheek of a person that claims this or that about sources, all based on how they relate to his personal preconceptions, having enever ever read a single one, is frankly unbelievable ("Draža was a good guy, I know he was, this source is the most accusational one!!" - based on WHAT? Your knowledge of sources? xD)
In short, the only way you can possibly remove the info in the paragraph is to somehow show that it is false (as opposed to 100% sourced and accurate). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I will translate Italian sources word after word!--Tiblocco (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That will be helpful, Tiblocco. If you would, please also provide some information about the academic credentials for the authors of any sources you translate, as we will need such information in order to weigh the sources. My suggestion would be to not bother with the encyclopedias as those are tertiary sources and don't carry sufficient weight to support detailed statements. Also, please note that even if 'no italian source wich confirms collaborazione or alleanza but only compromesso of Draza's warriors with Italian soldiers', that does not undermine sources which do unless they say something to the effect of "there was no collaboration between X and Y, only a series of compromises" (I hope I'm seeing the italian correctly through my french), in which case we can document the dispute if the sources have sufficient gravitas. There are plenty of reliable source which have documented that many groups of Chetniks openly collaborated with Italian forces in Montenegro and Bosnia, even if it is unclear to what degree M. sanctioned same, or the extent to which he was in control of these groups. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction, you've not been keeping-up with the sources, Nuujin :). It is, in fact, clear that M. sanctioned the collaboration.

"Mihailović was aware of and condoned the collaborationist agreements into which Jevđvić and Trifunović-Birčanin entered."
Ramet p.149

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking theoretically to address what I see as potential OR, and the "even if" introduces a clause in subjunctive.... --Nuujinn (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any real dispute in the sources that there was extensive collaboration with the Italians as described by Nujinn - and some collaboration with Germans. That is not the point. It is unrealistc to expect the article not to grapple with this issue. The point should be - for discussion after the new article has been posted, how to present that in the lead. The problem with this type of edit may be that it prsents the most unrelievedly extreme collection of bits of sources without any of the nuances and complexities of the situation, giving the impression that the Chetniks were just pro-nazi support troops when in fact they hoped for Allied victory and their ultimate aim was both the removal of Nazi occupation and not ending up a communist dominated country either. It is facile to try and present this in simple goodies versus baddies terms. I look forward to the new article being posted here and a civilised discussion on how to present the issue of collaboration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "nuances and complexities". Fainites, did Draža fight the Axis? Yes, lets describe that in the lead. Did Draža collaborate with the Axis? Yes, lets describe that in the lead as well. I've done the latter, and I have no objections to the addition of the former. These are all the "nuances" involved. The Chetniks hoped for an Allied victory, yes, but only if they managed to destroy the Partisans first. To quote Ramet: "Both the Chetniks' political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces."

Ideology, hopes, and propaganda aside, from a military point of view the main function of the Chetnik movement in WWII Yugoslavia is OVERWHELMINGLY - serving as "pro-nazi support troops", and that policy makes excellent military sense. Thats not me talking, of course, that's the sources. I invite you for the second time to read Chapter 7 of The Chetniks to fully understand the military function of the Chetniks in this conflict.

The reason in fact why the bits of information are presented instead of a simple sentence of the form "Draža Mihailović engaged in and condoned acts of collaboration with the Axis powers" is that such summations have been rejected as "labeling", in spite of being undeniably true. I have in fact been forced to display only the bear facts and avoid any such direct statements that might be more appropriate for the lead.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not forced to do anything. You don't have to react aggressively to every post - particularly unsourced posts - that you don't agree with. It doesn't make sense for us to say "Ideology, hopes and propaganda aside, from a military point of view....". Who are we to decide the "military point of view" and why should that predominate? Also - how can you be "pro-nazi" from a "military point of view". "Draža Mihailović engaged in and condoned acts of collaboration with the Axis powers" is preferable to your version but in any event, how to present this in the lead is a matter for discussion and consensus - not intemperate demands.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not really react aggressively..

"Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you."

..though you do seem to have me pegged as a "bully" and there's really nothing I can do about that.

Now, first of all, I am obviously not suggesting we ignore the "ideology, hopes, and propaganda" of the Chetniks. Though what is apparently being suggested is that we ignore the military point of view. And, in all fairness and objectivity, what the Chetnik troops actually did in WWII seems to me more significant than what their ideology was like (though both should be included) Also, as I pointed out, I am certainly not the one "deiciding" the military perspective, in fact I wore out my keyboard copying down on Wikipedia entire pages and chapters from the relevant sources. You can be "pro-Nazi from a military point of view" quite easily: simply fight for and with the Nazis, or order your men to fight with the Nazis.

I have absolutely nothing against deciding the wording by consensus. There is one catch, however. There are folks here who are essentially "in denial" with regard to the collaboration of the Chetniks, they being their WWII heroes. Draža Mihailović himself is, without a doubt, the no.1 Serbian nationalist icon and "martyr" of the modern age. Suggesting he was actually guilty of collaboration strips him of his "martyr" status.

Thus one aspect of consensus-building here is absolutey paramount: the consensus must be based on sources primarily, not the positions of Wikipedia users. Sources must not be ignored for the sake of a slanted consensus. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Balkan soccer fan" (the friendly way I am refered by direktor at AGK talk page) just came to remind that militarily Chetniks fought Germans, Italians, Pavelic Croatians, Muslim SS Units, etc. beside having participated in joint actions along Allies (including Partisans). So, while I don´t deny collaboration, seems allways that you direktor somehow forget this resistance part. I am never tired up of reminding everyone the episode when we were discussing one source about a Chetnik-German officials meating, that is presented as evidence of collaboration by direktor (?), which states that Germans refused the offer of agreement because the Mihailovic man were dismembering and decapitating German soldiers. When I confronted the situation by saying that this could not be used as evidence of collaboration and that we have here actually a confirmation of resistance activity and anymosity between the two, direktor and Nuujinn said that "dismembering and decapitating German soldiers was not an act of resistance". By this, I don´t pretend to show it as exemple of content, but of participants attitude. Also, you direktor use lately the word Chetnik propaganda, which I totaly fail to understand why. You already acused me of using sources related to Chetnik propaganda, however in my (incomplete) sources list (User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23) I fail to see anything close to be even closely described as such. Would you please be kind direktor and point out for which exact sources of mine you expressed your concern? FkpCascais (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, the way this discussion is prolongued and sidetracked is that FkpCascais starts talking about the (few!) instances of resistance and/or cooperation with the Partisans. That is NOT the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion is the collaboration of Draža Mihailović and how to describe it in the lead, and its time to discuss actual article changes. So, since it seems you now suddenly "do not deny collaboration", please tell me what is your proposal? How would you describe the collaboration in the lead? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the mediation after seing all the sources you presented, and after much of your exageration and missinterpretation was exposed, it was concluded that it was: Ocasional and oportunistic. I actually agree and those were not my words. How would you describe their resistance? FkpCascais (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Occasional and opportunistic"? "Opportunistic" it certainly was, when the policy is viewed as a whole. Very well, please post the sources that describe Chetnik collaboration as a whole as "occasional" (or at least along those lines). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to respond, FkpCascais? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is basically what I am talking about. How can anyone discuss like this? Sources and facts are the least of FkpCascais's concerns. When asked to present his case he simply does not respond - every single time. This must be the 50th yet. After this post he will inevitably switch the subject.

The fact is that there are NO sources that describe Chetnik collaboration as "occasional". FkpCascais is lobbying for the incusion of his own personal "assessment". The problem is that would be a ridiculous statement for a movement that collaborated openly and completely everywhere except southern Serbia (and there was almost entirely inactive by intentional policy), and at all times except the latter half of 1941. Chetnik collaboration is described in the sources e.g. as "systematic and extensive" (Ramet p. 145) and "systematic and enduring" (Tomasevich p.246) - and these are just the examples I have on hand since those are my "flagship sources".

So much for "occasional", please do not suggest it again without references. Now, lets keep the discussion focused. I have presented (some of) the sources describing Chetnik collaboration. With that in mind I ask you again: please tell me how would you cover Chetnik collaboration in the lead of this article? Should we ignore these sources and why? (Please try to support your proposal with references.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy direktor, people have a life you know (I´m not sure how can you expect me to be here 24h/day), listen, as I said, those were not my words, but a solution found after analising everything. The discussion is there somewhere between the tone of words said during the process. You can´t put the issue that way, since some sources don´t even talk using the word "collaboration". What you are doing here is quite absurd, and the mediation has the exact purpouse to find the needed balance between different views on the issue. The other solution, favoured by most but unstrangely rejected by you, was to say exactly who says what: "Historian Tomasevic claims...", but you seem to think that it is unecessary since in your view Ramet and Tomasevich are the holders of the trouth (?). By your sugestion, we will be having an unusual article which would sound to something like this:

• Draža Mihailović (born - died) was a Chetnik movement leader, ... . The Chetnik organization, officially named the "Chetnik Deatchments of the Yugoslav Army" in order to disassociate themself from the Chetniks who collaborated with Axis forces [Roberts p. 21], and later "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (JVUO, ЈВУО), was founded as a royalist/nationalist Serbian/Yugoslav resistance movement and was the first Yugoslav military opposition against invaders but by late 1941 they had fallen out with the communist resistance forces, the Partisans. From early 1942 Chetnik factions began collaborating with Italian forces and, after the collapse of Italy as an Axis power, with German occupation forces.[4] In 1943 along with attacks on German forces [Galbraith, p. 272] an intensified actions in rescuing British and American airman [Galbraith, p. 271] took place. They were the official Allied forces until December 1943 when the Allies switched their support in favour of the Partisans, however afterwords, they continued their resistance efforts by being envolved in half-dozen major attacks on Axis forces [Kurapovna p. 99] while hoping an Allied victory is archived. After the war Mihailovic was highly condecorated for his resistance efforts by United States and France, after a US Congress sponsored trial released him of all collaboration acusations he was charged in his home country, now ruled by Partisans leader Tito.

Atention: This is version I wrote in rush just to ilustrate a point to direktor, and it is not the exact version I defend as lead solution for the article. I just want to demostrate to direktor, and everyone interested, that his way of dealing with this issue is wrong and would lead us to have 2 versions of same article, meaning that instead of having a coherent article, readers will be bombed by oposing claims, and basically left confused. Instead of pushing extremes, I beleave we have enough capacity to interpret and understand all sources and make a peacefull resume of the events, the problem is when some users simply demand using an extreme POV wording in the articles... FkpCascais (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• First of all: you did not describe the acts of collaboration by Draža Mihailović. Why did you avoid that? How would you describe the collaboration of Draža Mihailović?
• Second of all, you are placing UNBELIEVABLE WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on the few militarily insignificant attacks the Chetniks commited against the Axis. Here you have a military faction policing entire regions for, and in agreement with, the Germans, being supplied by the Germans, conducting real military operations numbering thousands of men under German overall command, for years on end no less - and yet here we have a proposed lead that gathers together every single anti-Axis operation and contrasts it with a half a forced, squeeted-out sentence stating ...they also collaborated :). Not that I'm terribly surprised, but still, I have to point out that this unbelievable bias.
• And third, you still have no sources. As I pointed out before, there are numerous high-quality authors on this subject, historians, professionals who have devoted their entire lives to the study of WWII Yugoslavia. Pavlowitch, Ramet, Tomasevic, Dickson, etc..
  Galbraith's memoirs are not a scholarly source. Kurapovna, a Balkans wartime correspondent, is not a scholarly source. You know this, I pointed it out.

Finally, There was no "trial" in the US, the US cannot acquit a Yugoslav citizen, you've mixed up the facts again (deliberately?). A secret, political finding by the US congress, 60 years ago with not a fifth of the information available now is no "evidence" of innocence - and will not be presented as such.n On the other hand, ordering your regional commander to "cooperate with the Germans" is, in fact, evidence of guilt.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Look.. lets get back on subject. For the record you will not succeed in placing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on a few meaningless raids, quoting non-scholarly dribble, while demanding that serious historians (lauded by the American Historical Association as the "best sources available") be mentioned by name at the same time. That's not gonna fly, and that's for the record. But I did not ask you to post your enite stlanted lead here. Lets talk about the collaboration FIRST.

• So even though you cannot get yourself to write this without burying it in low-quality "excuses", you agree on "From early 1942 Chetnik factions began collaborating with Italian forces and, after the collapse of Italy as an Axis power, with German occupation forces." With the addition of the Ustaše (sourced!) and the wording used by the "best sources available" (according to the AHA [1]), we might even have consensus. Fine. Even though I feel you might go back on this, its still more progress than the mediation achieved in 15 months.
• Now for Draža himself, this is the Draža Mihailović article after all. You know he collaborated, I quoted you his own words confessing he did so - several times over. So, with the sources in mind, how would you describe Draža's collaboration.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you two people not think there's something significant in the way nobody else joins in these TLDR tennis matches? Lets wait for the new article to be posted and then discuss any changes- allowing other people to discuss too. Now the mediation pages have been blanked off - nobody else except participants can see them. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No I think this is useful, Fkp and I can finally get an idea about where the other stands regarding actual text changes. In fact, Fainites, this exchange might help focus the discussion on the text instead of a meaningless forum-like debate.

But TLDR is a major problem here.. this is a highly complex guerriila military situation we're trying to gauge objectively, how can anyone form an unibiased position on this without at least reading-up partially on the subject matter? Frankly half of my arrogance here stems from the fact that I'm the only one to have actually read a single book on this war.. if you really want to help us put together a text that is neutral and in accordance with sources, I honestly suggest picking-up a book or at least part of it (my recommendation you've heard). Gauging the "more neutral" side from the rudeness of the exchange is imho a very unreliable method :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. Furthermore - your discussion with Fkp is following the normal pattern and going nowhere other than becoming increasingly offensive. Might I suggest you seriously consider striking the above piece of text as it seems to serve little purpose other than endeavouring to offend everybody? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) ::Ahem. Direktor, please careful with assumptions about what people have read.

Fkp, I know you were in a rush, but I do not think "The Chetnik organization, officially named the "Chetnik Deatchments of the Yugoslav Army" in order to disassociate themself from the Chetniks who collaborated with Axis forces [Roberts p. 21]," can be sourced to Roberts on p. 21. What I see similar there is "In order to dissociate himself with the Cetniks who collaborated with the German, M. at first called his movement the "Ravna Gora Movement". I don't have notes or page 5 available at the moment. The context for that particular line is, however, M.'s relationship with Pecanac and Nedic. Nedic openly collaborated with the Germans early on, and I believe that Robert's point is that M. did not want his people confused with Nedic's, but we also know that it was not so very long after that that M. dispersed his people into the ranks of Nedic's troops, joined the Montenegran Chetniks, and we know what happened then. Also, you say "...by late 1941 they had fallen out with the communist resistance forces, the Partisans." That's not quite accurate, as M. ordered the attack on the Partisans around the same time the Germans refused to provide him with arms and ammunition because they did not trust him. It's complex issue, and I don't think the way you phrase it there captures that or is appropriate to the lead.

Fainites is right, best to let this sit a while and come back to it. I cannot speak for Fainites, but I think the issue of TLDR is a real problem here. Long paragraphs are often less convincing than short ones, and the prose in this discussions is often highly repetitive, which discourages participation by others. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the mediation was complicated by overly long and, at times, off-topic posts. Perhaps we should have some norms for discussion when the new draft of the article gets posted. Also, I think it should be a moderated discussion. Fainites, would you be willing to help out with this? Sunray (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies if I've offended, everyone, but my remark about "half-an-arrogance" and reading was really intended as half-joke. I know full well Fainites read Ramet and more, and Nuujin researched this matter thoroughly - and you know I know. I am alarmed, however, at the unbridled aggression that is displayed by Fainites, probably due to perceived aggression on my part. Now that anything I write is being seen as an insult, it may well be our relations have passed the point of no return.

• @Fainites. As I said, I know you researched this issue, and you know I know it, how could you have taken offence at what was obviously not a serious remark? Granted the smiley is missing, but still, it was an ironic joke - at my own expense no less. I was merely reccomending Tomasevich once more as a highly accalimed and specialized source. Though I am now starting to take offense at being referred to as "you people" and my painstaking attempts at discussion, which were making progress in determining our positions on this, made fun of as "tennis matches".
• @Sunray. This is simply not an off-topic discussion, in fact unlike most of the gibberish in the mediation it actually concerns proposals for specific article changes regarding the main dispute - the collaboration. So again, it is not off-topic in any way.

In fact I feel that our two venerable admins have just gotten yourselves involved at the point where progress was starting to be made. TLDR indeed.. had you read the discussions you might've discovered that FkpCascais and myself have determined our positions on describing Chetnik collaboration in the lead are not so different, and were just moving on to Draža. (The remainder of the lead proposal is indeed, as Nuujin and myself pointed out, more than a bit misleading, badly sourced, and just plain wrong, but one subject at a time, methinks - if we can agree on the collaboration wording we've solved a huge chunk of the problem.)

So getting back on subject, Fkp, how would you cover the collaboration of Draža Mihailović in the lead? What is your proposal? But please keep the facts and sources in mind, and please lets focus on covering the collaboration itself, we can deal with the mitigating circumstances later. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

. Nope - can't see the joke in if you really want to help us put together a text that is neutral and in accordance with sources, I honestly suggest picking-up a book or at least part of it (my recommendation you've heard). Gauging the "more neutral" side from the rudeness of the exchange is imho a very unreliable method. Neither will it work as part of a campaign to claim I am "involved". Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

present introduction or lead paragraph is well made: on alternative I agree rewritten by FkpCascais--Tiblocco (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, I´ll repeat myself: I do not support at all your collaboration lead, I only used it in the parodical exemple I gave to show what kind of response your version asks for, and how the two are not the possible solution for the artice because we can´t and should not express the extremes, but rather use our common sense and WP:UNDUE to find a way to describe fairly the events. You ask me how would I describe collaboration in the lead: well, first of all I´m not sure even if it has a place in the lead (some authors don´t give it much importance probably because they know the reasons behind and the limited ammount, plus, they describe it differently not using "Tomasevich and Ramet" acusational tone) we are not obligated to use that description at all which was basically introduced as way to condemn them, and if included I have already told you that I agree with the concluded that it was ocasional and oportunistic.

Let me be as clear and straightforward so that no possibility of misunderstanding exists: how would you describe the collaboration of Draža Mihailović, not of the Chetniks as a whole, in the lead of the Draža Mihailović article?

I am not asking for your proposal for the lead, I am simply asking how would you talk about the collaboration of Draža Mihailović. Later we can talk about all the other stuff, some factual some not, which you want to use to bury the collaboration as deep as possible in the text on the whole. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In your lead proposal you describe the movement, not Mihailovic, and if you really want me to answer about Mihailovic, well, he condemed acts of collaboration and even executed the ones that collaborated. FkpCascais (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean he assassinated the leader of a rival Chetnik faction? :)

Again, do you have a proposal on the best way to cover the collaboration of Draža Mihailović in the lead? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour to find a balanced way to describe the most important events fairly in the lead. His relation with the Axis (you defend to name it "collaboration", I think it is far from being simplified into that unless we are seeking condenations) does not need to be necessarily included in the lead, since he had a life full of other important events. You seem to find extreme importance in that and none to the rest. I´m not sure how you want me to answer to you something I´m not even sure if it has a place in the lead, speacially not in the way you pretend. A balanced way to describe all his activities and actions is what we need, not to pick one extreme, streach it, and give him strong color. FkpCascais (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are essentially suggesting we ignore his acts of collaboration with the Axis in the lead because he had a full life? Come on man.. :)

My intention was never to give undue weight to his collaboration. Do you remember how this started? You claimed he did not collaborate at all, and I supported a simple statement that he did. Because after all - he did. My position is still the same. I merely believe that it is POV to ignore the sources and exclude these facts.

At his trial, Draža's defence claimed that Branko Ostojić, his chief of operations was in command during the Battle of the Neretva, one of the major battes of the war where 15,000 Chetniks fought under German command. Once the OKW documents were released, Draža's communique to Colonel Stanišić (the commander on the ground) was found: "I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected."

And, as you know, this is just an example. How would you present events like this in the lead. Remember: I did not use the word "collaborated" in my proposed paragraph. I merely listed a few events such as this one, and there are many many more. So, I have nothing against not using the words "collaborate", but if we do not sum it up, then we need to present it in more detail. Without either, we are talking about omission of data, plain and simple - and for POV reasons.

So do you have a text proposal or do you really hold we should omit his relationship with the Axis entirely? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources that may be helpful

In my opinion, the following source would be useful for this article. I reproduce its abstract and conclusion. This is a good quality recent English source, and, according to our policy it is among the most reliable secondary sources.

ABSTRACT. This article explores the ways in which Drazˇa Mihailovic´ and the Chetnik movement have been presented and reinterpreted as historical figures in Serbian historiography and popular representations of history since the Second World War, from his vilification and portrayal as a traitor to eventual rehabilitation and depiction as a Serbian national hero. It examines the key role played by historians as mediators of memory and charts the way in which the instrumentalisation of Second World War history by communist historiography paved the way for extensive national reinterpretations of wartime history and the creation of new usable national histories in the post-Yugoslav republics. The article addresses issues of transmission by reference to educational historiography and analyses the controversy caused by a Serbian basketball player’s tattoo of Mihailovic´ in 2004 in order to explore the shifting paradigms of political memory discourses and historical interpretations."

CONCLUSION While Yugoslav Communists presented Mihailovic´ and the Chetniks as national traitors, war criminals and representatives of Serbia’s pro-Fascist and degenerate bourgeoisie in the first decades after the Second World War, from the 1980s onwards the Chetniks were gradually rehabilitated in the Serbian socialist republic. This process of rehabilitation continued apace in the Republic of Serbia after the breakdown of socialist Yugoslavia. In Bosnia and Croatia, however, the image of the Chetniks as traitorous and genocidal criminals remained or gained even sharper focus, as war crimes committed by Serbian paramilitaries in Bosnia and Croatia re-actualised the issue of Chetnik Second World War crimes. The images of Mihailovic´ and the Chetnik movement thus differed widely among the post-Yugoslav republics. Draza Mihailovic´ is now a national hero in Serbia, but a nationalist and Fascist war criminal in Croatia and Bosnia. These very diverse interpretations of Mihailovic´ and the Chetniks in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia are a consequence of the following. Firstly, the Chetniks were a very heterogeneous group: they were an amalgamation of anti-Communists, patriotic freedom fighters, collaborators, traitors, war criminals and perpetrators of genocidal violence. Furthermore, not all were under Mihailovic´’s command. Secondly, the Communists’ utterly one-sided interpretation and instrumental use of the history of the Chetniks undermined and delegitimised all communist period historiography. This paved the way for wholesale reinterpretations, which would inevitably be anti-Communist. Yet, by leaving the massacres and war crimes out of the Chetnik narrative, a new flawed and one-sided picture of Mihailovic´ and his movement was created. Finally, the current understandings of Mihailovic´ and the Chetniks are also the products of efforts to construct usable national histories in the post-Yugoslav republics. These histories are often simplistic or non-reflective, and they are often characterised by a lack of sensitivity towards other national histories. Then again, was not national history ever thus?" (TEA SINDBÆK, The Fall and Rise of a National Hero: Interpretations of Draza Mihailovic and the Chetniks in Yugoslavia and Serbia since 1945. Journal of Contemporary European Studies Vol. 17, No. 1, 47–59, April 2009)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that this source in actuality has been cited in the article, however, that has been done incorrectly. The claim it is supposed to support:

"Axis collaboration and ethnic cleansing by general are much debated questions because many Serb citizen remember this historic personage like as a real hero for Serb freedom."

is not present there. The article's point is that heroisation of Mihailovic is a recent trend, and it is not a result of people's memory. This claim is not supported by the source and should be removed. I have a feeling that the user who added this text simply haven't read the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is really a terrible mess. Misquoted sources, completely unsourced gibberish etc..

The source is absolutely right. As it happens I myself noticed this HUGE indiscrepancy between views held by the nationalists in (my home country of) Croatia, and those held by teh nationalists in Serbia. So I decided to get to the bottom of this for Wikipedia. Was Draža really a "collaborator" as the Ustaše fans around here claimed, or was he a "hero" as the Radicals in Serbia claimed? It turns out that he was a collaborator after all. The only thing confusing the issue is that he was a collaborator who hated the Germans, and collaborated with them only to destroy those whom he correctly(!) perceived as the greatest threat to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That does not change the fact, however, that he was a collaborator. For him, the fascists were simply the "lesser of two evils", and here's a way to use one "evil" to destroy another (the Allies would destroy the first one anyway).

So here you have a guy who collaborated, but collaborated for (what he perceived as) the good of his country. Thats basically all the complexity of this.

This is why I want to do this in two parts: lets agree on the wording describing Draža's collaboration, and then lets get into his motivations and the "mitigating circumstances". Certainly both need to be described, but we're not going to get anywhere while there is insistance that collaboration be simply ignored for no reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What is good and what is bad is sometimes a matter of judgement, and cannot be objective. The source I quoted provided more neutral way to describe that issue: Chetniks were not a uniform force, and their policy was evolving with time. As a result, no single word can be used to describe Michailovic: neither patriot nor traitor, neither resistance leader not collaborator. Each of them is applicable, and none of them tells the full story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

..and that's why in the paragraph I simply mentioned his more controversial acts without presuming to render judgement in any way. A "collaborator" probably not, such labeling is not our perrogative. But did he commit acts of collaboration? Certainly. Should we ignore this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The source quoted by me clearly states that the views of Mihailovic as a collaborator or resistance leader are two different national POVs, and that the actual picture is more complex. The source is mainstream and reliable, and this statement seems to be uncontested currently. Therefore, the article must reflect that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, we used this article in the draft to which I am hoping we will soon have access in the legacy section, and we may well want to expand its use. Please note however that the two views discussed in that article are those of the Yugoslav communists and the Serbian nationalists. The mainline sources we've been using are professional historians who fall into neither of those categories. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Nobody is suggesting that the article states anything as over-simplified and onde-sided as "Draža Mihailović was a collaborator". The sources do not use that wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you usually use this simplification. Saying that Chetniks collaborated from 1942 onwords is simplifiying and totaly inacurate. FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well he was a "collaborator" in the strictest sense, that is, "a person who comits acts of collaboration", had he had a fair trial he would have been found guilty no question. But, as Paul correctly points out, his contribution was also that of a resistance leader, so overall I would not use that term, that is where the communists went too far. To have a little fun with it mathematically: "collaborator" + "resistance leader" ≠ "collaborator", though he was all of those things. Does this mean we should ignore his controversial acts of cooperation with the Axis?

I have made my position on this abundantly clear to you numerous, numerous times both here and on the mediation. This is nothing new. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, all you are saying here now goes completely against all that you were saying all the time, but, who am I to go against you now? Just please avoid missinforming with arrongance in the way you did in your last sentence, because if you really want me to answer to you, no, you did not ever said anything even remotely similar to that.

Now, lets see, the entire purpouse of using the word collaboration comes probably from the trial, so did he really collaborated? Is that the exact word? Cause he was head hunted by German Wermacht same time... FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well either you're being purposely misleading or you don't really read my posts. Or both :). I've been telling you for months and months that I oppose using the label "collaborator", and my proposed paragraph does not even use the word "collaborate" in connection with Draža. Sunray might remember and confirm this. But it doesn't really matter.

No, the word "collaborate" comes from sources (e.g. "Mihailović was aware of and condoned the collaborationist agreements"). Now here's my position: we can either mention his more controversial acts - without using the word "collaborate" in connection to him personally. Or we can say something like "Draža Mihailović engaged in and condoned acts of collaboration with the Axis powers", which would be the single sentence option for representing the sources without going into the details. The only alternative to the two is to ignore the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussing resistance

While initially I had here an extensive, probably egocentic, comment where I explained a bit of my background, the reasons behind my involvement in this dispute and a large section where I was defending myself of being labeled as nationalist for oposing direktor´s views, I went too far with my enthusiasm and shortened my comment to material strictly usefull for the mediation itself. I did it mostly because I feel saturated of direktors labeling of the oposing views to he´s as Serbian nationalism or Chetnik propaganda. I don´t see neither in what I defend neither in the sources I used anything even similar to such. I will ask direktor to please stop using such victimizing argumentation that has the only purpose to discredit other users arguments, or otherwise present the exact reasons for making such acusations.

I am very thanfull to Paul Siebert for his help and I hope he will further assist us in this complicated historical discussion that is desperately needing expert involvement. He also noteced another fundamental aspect of this problem, which was the missinterpretation and wrong use of sources, something I allways complained about. Many editors that edited the previous version approached the article with inflexible strong ideas only bothering afterwords to search for sources to fit their claims, often not even getting them properly but using the more close ones anyway hoping no one will give notice of it. I do feel temptated to say that what Paul expressed about using strong words (ex.: nor hero, nor collaborator) goes along all that I allways stood for. Mentioning all facts and events in the article is important, but mostly presenting them without any of the unrealistic radicalised views found nowadays in Serbia (war heroes), or Croatia and Bosnia (war criminals and traitors), but in a neutral distanced view. For me one thing seems very important, and that is the ability to differenciate the events from the WWII with the ones from the 1990s. Regarding this I can say that I live outside Yugoslavia, more precisely in Portugal, since mid 1980s and I completely missed all the euforia lived there during the 1990s and together with the fact that the presence of Yugoslav emigration here is minimal and the fact that I completed my entire education in English, Spanish and Portuguese educational system, helped me even further to stay away from the 1990s propaganda´s and to differenciate the events from the WWII from the recent ones.

This introduction of mine was done with the intention of explaining that the reasons of oposing direktor´s edits have nothing to do with any sort of nationalism but rather a beleave that his edits were totaly oposed to numerous policies. Hoping to further help the mediation progress and as way to identify more precisely the disputed areas, I would like to intoduce into debate the following facts:

• Chetniks were the official Allied forces in Yugoslavia until December 1943. Even afterwords, they never became enemies and even participayed in joint actions with American and even Soviet troops, meaning, they were never Allied enemies and no fighting never occured between Chetniks and any Allied troops except Partisans (in the period they were formaly Allies).
• The WWII in Yugoslavia was a 3-side war, and simplifiying it to 2-side is not correct neither supported by any reliable sources.
• Chetniks actually fought the Axis troops in every year of the war, meaning there was never an extensive period of "collaboration" with the Axis as direktor wants to present.
• Chetniks did participated in joint offensives with Germans against Partisans, but those agreements that existed between them (Chetniks and Axis) can be streached in their description almost from "collaboration" to simple "cease-fires in order to concentrate in the 3th party". A middle ground in finding the best description is necessary.
• Mihailovic was head hunted by German Wermacht troughout the war.
• Chetniks and Germans never signed any peace agreement.
• Mihailovic executed numerous Chetniks that engaged in collaboration with the Axis forces.
• Chetniks main goal was to liberate the country from foreign troops (all Axis) and restore the monarchy that was awaiting Allied victory in London (not Berlin or Rome).
• Chetniks policy of passive resistance, so often used as acusation, was a British supported policy.
• The subsequent condenation of Mihailovic in Tito sponsored trial is openly considered biased by most historians, thus its conclusions are not reliable.
• Mihailovic was highly condecorated by United States and France after the war. He was awarded for his resistance efforts and rescuing missions, not only the last as some claim.
• Mihailovic was released by US Congress sponsored trial from all charges he had been found guilty in Tito sponsored trial in post-war Yugoslavia. I beleave that it was in consequence of that posthumous trial that he was awarded with the Legion of Merit by president Truman. I still need sources for this events that I consider of extreme importance to the subject however we can include it in the discussion.

All this facts enter in contradiction with the way direktor edits. I don´t deny Mihailovic founded himself in hard position and had to negociate with Axis including a few joined actions against Partisans, and I don´t opose at all having that included in the article, but it has to be descibed in the way it really happend, and not in a way as if we were seeking condemnation for his actions. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I do not think it is appropriate to comment on the background, ethnicity, country of origin, or any other personal details of other editors as such have nothing to do with the content of the article in question. Please focus on the content, not the contributor. This needs to be like unto a mantra if these discussions are to progress. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, however Direktor has donne this in the past numerous times and still insists in Chetnik propaganda and Serbian nationalism as oposing him, and since I am his oponent here, this is directed towards me. For that kind of approach from behalve of direktor, I do feel necessary to explain myself, and in case he acted strictly in edit content, I wouldn´t. I am not talking only on the comments on this page, and I was the one refraining from doing this. Now, I actually initiated here a debate about edit content, and I asked which ones of the ponts I made here are actually disputed? FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn and direktor, would you mind I remove this entire thread? I´m asking you because contains a comment of yours (Nuujinn) in between. This comment of mine is very silly and I pretend to open one in near time focusing only about Mihailovic facts. I apologise to you direktor if you felt offended anyhow, however I pointed some issues I would like you to consider please, such as presenting the oposition against you as "nationalism" and other silly stuff in order to discredit it in other people´s eyes. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to remove the entire thread. Nuujinn's observation is fair ball and I think all references to national origins or ethnicity should be dealt with based on content. FkpCascais, would you please make the necessary corrections? One more observation. These posts are much too long. The point gets buried in all the verbiage. Would users contributing to this discussion please try to make their point succinctly? Sunray (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray, there are good comments buried in there. I would also suggest that anytime any participant makes a statement regarding content they provide a reference, or at least be prepared to. For example (and I'm not picking on you, FkpCascais, it's just a handy example), "The war in Yugoslavia was a 3-side war" is something that should be attributable to a source. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thank you all for accepting my apologies and I fully agree that we should focus on article content that will certainly help us to archive progress. I removed most of my explanational content from the initial comment and I left the points to discuss. While posting it I knew sources for it will be the most important issue, and coincidentally the exemple you gave Nuujinn was exactly the one that made me doubt more because it is the one lacking a direct source for the claim, however I included it because it would be interesting debating it and because I think there are also no sources contradicting it, so a debate is necessary. It is certainly important on how to present the conflict in all related articles, navigational boxes and infoboxes. However, I beleave it is one of those claims that not directly sourced may be understood as such trough the content. In case of having sources for the fighting between all 3 sides in same time period and asuming from begining that it was a Axis/Allies war, the only one missing was a source for the "civil war" between Partisans and Chetniks, wich is also avaliable, so it is possible in consequence to conclude that it was a 3-side war, at least that is my view and I´ll try to source it directly if possible. I´ll see if in next few days I´ll be able to bring all sources and I included the last one about the US trial which is also the one needing sources. It would be interesting if we could see the points agreed by all, that way reducing the discussion only to those which are disputed or worth a more detailed discussion, I mean, all this if Sunray finds appropriate for mediation progress, of course. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. A summary of points agreed on is a good idea. Difficult to compile, though, I think. Sunray (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken Fkp. Though I must say I love the way how you just say things and make them true - with no sources at all. Its a unique ability :), and now I have to say something, don't I, or the fake claims are going to stand? I am prepared to back each of these rebuttals with sources of course. Lets review the points:

• Chetniks were the official Allied forces in Yugoslavia until December 1943. Even afterwords, they never became enemies and even participayed in joint actions with American and even Soviet troops, meaning, they were never Allied enemies and no fighting never occured between Chetniks and any Allied troops except Partisans (in the period they were formaly Allies).
  • Hm.. that is not entirely true. The Chetniks fought with Nedić troops against the Soviet Union as well. Maybe there was some incident where they cooperated with the Red Army, but on teh whole during the Belgrade Operation they fought against the Soviets, being merged largely with Nedić's formations anyway.
• "The WWII in Yugoslavia was a 3-side war, and simplifiying it to 2-side is not correct neither supported by any reliable sources."
  • No, not really. The Chetniks had an awowed policy of non-confrontation with the Axis, their anti-Axis activities are, on the whole, negligible after 1941, and their operations under German and Italian command are simply far, faar more significant in scope than any minor acts of diversion or raids in southern Serbia. There is really no comparing Chetnik pro-Axis and anti-Axis activities, and it would be POV that the same faction that policed whole regions and provided thousands of support troops to Axis operations is now presented as something else on the basis of a couple of raids in southern Serbia. In short, the Chetniks fought with the Axis - that is not a "third faction".
• "Chetniks actually fought the Axis troops in every year of the war, meaning there was never an extensive period of "collaboration" with the Axis as direktor wants to present."
  • Nope. As I said, collaboration was present virtually everywhere and at all times except geographically in Southern Serbia, and temporally in the latter half of 1941. Simply saying that is not so does not really make it not so.
• "Chetniks did participated in joint offensives with Germans against Partisans, but those agreements that existed between them (Chetniks and Axis) can be streached in their description almost from "collaboration" to simple "cease-fires in order to concentrate in the 3th party". A middle ground in finding the best description is necessary."
  • Nope. I don't want to copy paste the actual texts of the various agreements here, but these were collaboration agreements without a shadow of a doubt. The Chethiks agreed (and did) to fight under Italian and German command, to get food and military supplies from the Axis, and even to receive pensions(!) from the NDH government, etc. Won't go into the details, suffices to say: no.
• "Mihailovic was head hunted by German Wermacht troughout the war."
  • No, just in 1941.
• "Chetniks and Germans never signed any peace agreement."
  • Yes they did :).
• Mihailovic executed numerous Chetniks that engaged in collaboration with the Axis forces.
  • No, just Kosta Pećanac, who was his personal enemy and rival for the command of the Chetnik movement.
• "The Chetniks main goal was to liberate the country from foreign troops (all Axis) and restore the monarchy that was awaiting Allied victory in London (not Berlin or Rome)."
  • No, this is stated outright in numerous publications: the Chetniks' main goal was to eliminate the Partisans.
• "Chetniks policy of passive resistance, so often used as acusation, was a British supported policy."
  • This is new to me. Who says?
• "The subsequent condenation of Mihailovic in Tito sponsored trial is openly considered biased by most historians, thus its conclusions are not reliable."
  • Yes, the trial was biased, no argument there, they pretty much had to kill him one way or the other. However, you neglect to mention that had he had a fair trial, with all the facts in - he would have still been found guilty no question. For example the primary claim of his defence, that he did not command the Chetniks during Fall Weiss, has been proven to have been an outright lie.
• "Mihailovic was highly condecorated by United States and France after the war. He was awarded for his resistance efforts and rescuing missions, not only the last as some claim."
  • Yes, certainly worth including in the article but it does not really reflect his conduct, merely its cotemporary perception in France and the US.
• "Mihailovic was released by US Congress sponsored trial from all charges he had been found guilty in Tito sponsored trial in post-war Yugoslavia. I beleave that it was in consequence of that posthumous trial that he was awarded with the Legion of Merit by president Truman. I still need sources for this events that I consider of extreme importance to the subject however we can include it in the discussion."
  • No. The US certainly did not hold a "trial" for a deceased Yugoslav citizen, it was merely an inquiry requested by the Congress before a medal can be awarded to him. But again, this does not reflect his conduct, merely the perception of his conduct in the US at that time. And, after all, this was the Cold War, Yugoslavia was the no.1 communist enemy in Eastern Europe in the immediate aftermath of WWII: trying to annex Trieste and parts of Austria, supporting Greek rebels - and had just shot down two US aircraft to boot.

In the future lets avoid these sort of "statements", support your claims with sources at all times please. And everyone, lets not take anyone's "word" for anything around here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all I will like to thank you direktor for you response. Said that, I´ll enter into the points:

• Chetniks didn´t fought with Nedic´s troops, and certainly not in Belgrade while they were involved in rescuing missions in central and southern Serbia and in other resistance activities. There seems to be some confusion with Nedic Chetniks, but those were not Mihailovic ones. I beleave you acknolledged in the recent past that Chetniks intensifiyed their resistance activities by the end of the war when it was already clear allies were going to win.
• You give all the importance to a few joint actions along Axis against Partisans while you, in your own words, completely neglect all their resistance activities. The policy of non-confrontation is again used as excuse. Regarding the 3-side war, that is also evident in the final goals of each group, and in which Chetniks had clearly a different agenda from both, Axis and Partisans.
• I already presented sources for combats against Germans in each year of the war and in near future I´ll like to make a chronological succession of events related to them. Your entire answer in this point is inconsistent.
• Yes, we will go into details here, a matter you were most interested in expanding. A separate section if you want? This way we will be basically putting under scrutiny your pretended text in the "Relations with Axis" section, so as soon as wee start, better.
• The Mihailovic dead-or-alive was wanted by Germans troughut the war and was never lifted.
• Chetniks and Germans never signed any peace agreement, all they signed were just temporary agreements.
• Kosta Pecanac was the most known executed, but not the only one.
• It is stated in the Instrukcije. Restoring the monarchy by itself implies not allowing Partisans to get in power, I can´t see what is to be disagreed here.
• Well, as you are not mediation participant for some time now, you may missed the sources I gathered (User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23). Roberts explains this in pages 26 and 27 [2]. In order to avoid self-destruction the Yugoslav governament from London supported a policy of resistance in terms of setting up an organisation which, when the time was ripe, would rise against the occupying forces. British policy with regard to European resistance movements was to restrain them from activities which would led to their premature destruction. This Brittish policy coincided initially with the concepts on the basis of which Mihailovic´s movement was being operated."
• We can´t speculate what would have a fair trial looked like, and you can´t certainly claim his condentaion. In Tito sponsored one, even his lawyer ended killed.
• Yes, it does reflect his conduct and the United States and France (beside Britain) were well informed about his actions and activities and the reasons behind them.
• As I said, more information on this is necessary, however, weather an in abscentia trial or an inquiry, their conclusions are very important. The excuse you use about the geo-political situation are not applicable, because we could speculate equally in oposite direction, as for exemple, United States would certainly have no interess in insisting to reward a decessed movement and their leader while trying to approach in frinedly way Tito Yugoslavia and gain their support. But this is all speculation, and we should focus on tha fact that his actions went trough scrutiny in the US and their conclusion was to award his resistance efforts. As you well said, United States are and were a democracy, thus their "perception" and conclusions are of high value. FkpCascais (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not be purposely misleading. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An arbitrary break

Liebe Damen und Heeren, these types of discussion are, in my opinion, simply not useful. Walls of text with lists of unsourced general assertions will not be read by many editors following these discussions. The issues are complex and do not lend themselves to bullet points.

As a single example, yes, the British in general did support the notion that resistance forces should avoid direct confrontation in order to spare their forces until the time was ripe, but M. wound up being an exception to this as M. misrepresented his activities to both the British and YGE in order to gain arms and ammunition that he might fight the Partisans. These actions led to Hudson to stop supply drops since the arms were being used not in resistance activities but rather as part of a civil conflict against the Partisans. (roberts, p 35) Both the YGE and British latched onto him as a propaganda tool, due to what Roberts calls his "supposed activities against the Germans" and this view spread to the US, where the press lauded his attacks on the German at a time when he was "completely inactive" and when a German report characterized him as a potential but not acute danger as M. was engaging the Partisans and not the Germans. (Roberts, p 38-39) M. cut off Hudson from communications with the British until April of 1942 to control the flow of information (Roberts, p. 53-54) Roberts discusses the issue of the British policy of resistance strategy on pages 72-75, noting that while the British did not have a different policy for Yugoslavia, the YGE had "..."decided to claim that the Cetniks had risen against the occupier. It asked the British for arms and supply drops to Mihailovic. When the British found out that the arms were not used for sabotage but for civil war purposes, a crisis of confidence developed which was to plague British-Cetnik relations for the rest of the war", and that the YGE had attributed Partisan resistance actions against the Axis to M. and his forces. By 1943, support had begun to shift from M. to Tito, and M. was reported by Time in the article "Mihailovic Eclipsed" as being inactive and in collaboration with the Italians.(Roberts, p. 75). Bailey reports in early 1943 that M. was "...stubborn and conceited regarding his diplomatic powers of deceiving us",(Roberts, pp. 88-89) and soon after the British Foreign Office "...was persuaded of Mihailovic's collaboration, at least with the Italians." (Roberts, p. 93) In summary, yes, British policy was that resistance forces avoid direct engagement of enemy troops, M. claimed he was was directly engaging the Germans when he was actually engaging the Partisans, deceived British intelligence and the YGE in order to further those ends, and wound up in the unfortunate circumstance of having been found out at a time when the Partisans were active and effective in resisting the Axis forces.

I'm sorry to have gone on so long on that one point, but it's important that we do not attempt to characterize complexity with oversimplification, and that we deal with sources in their entirety rather than relying on what is available in snippets or limited previews, as to do so will surely lead to POV and OR violations. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Fkp, in regard to 'As you well said, United States are and were a democracy, thus their "perception" and conclusions are of high value', speaking as a US citizen, that's simply not supportable. We're no better or worse than other nations, we engage in politics and propaganda, as do pretty much all nations. I think the most you can say is that we're not unified in our messages. In the case of M, he was used for political purposes by conservatives during the cold war, and I think I can show that with good sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I don´t understand why you disagree about the importance of clarifiying these facts. As you can see DIREKTOR and you disagree with me about some of these points, and they are basically the skelet of the issue itself. I hope Sunray further aproves discussing them and I hope you contribute. I would also welcome other people´s views on this and obviously the most important, Sunray´s one. FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent approach Nujinn.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My idea is to see what sources say for each one of them, however I thouth of making this inital approach in order to see where are exactly the greatest differences in our views. FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, thank you. FkpCascais, I don't know why you say "I don´t understand why you disagree about the importance of clarifiying these facts" when I just illuminated one of the facts you listed above, specifically "Chetniks policy of passive resistance, so often used as acusation, was a British supported policy", using a source to which you apparently have access. And I expect that DIREKTOR and I will be at odds on many an issue over the coming years, should we remain dirt side down and editing here. I know the DIREKTOR can be almost as stubborn as I, but he is willing to work closely with sources, in their entirety, and I'm asking you to do the same. Will you do that? And I'm not sure what you'd like Sunray to comment upon, could you clarify? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I don´t understand what you mean by "illuminated"? The source (Roberts) says clearly that it was a Brittish suported policy and how they initially coincided, so what is doubtfull here? You just started discussing one of the points, thank you for that. I also said I will bring sources for the rest, you are also welcome to do so. Now, I don´t understand what is exactly that you pretend? FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, M. presented himself from the outset as if he were actively engaging the Germans. He wasn't, and used the arms that the British supplied to attack the Partisans. The point that Roberts is making is that while some might argue (and have) that the British had a different policy in regards to the resistance in Yugoslavia, that was not the case, but rather that the YGE decided to portray M. and the Chetniks as actively engaged in resistance against the Germans. This is covered on pages 72-73 in Roberts. You seem to be arguing that by not engaging the Germans, M. was complying with British policy, and I do not think that is supported in the sources. On page 26 of Roberts, he say that M. was following the orders of the YGE, which were broadcast over the BBC radio. On page 27 Roberts notes that initially M.'s tactics "coincided" with British policy, but does not make a cause and effect relationship. Roberts latter says that M. did not engage the Germans partly because he was afraid of reprisals (Roberts, p.34) Fkp, I ask you now point blank, do you or do you not have access to the entirety of the Roberts source?

While I have only access to the free access pages, I don´t make at all a different reading from my own, that M. tactics were coinciding initially with Brittish policy towards European resistance movements. Pages 26 and 27 are quite clear and nothing you further mentioned denies this. It makes all sence, since they were following orders from YGE based in London and under Brittish influence. Also, you can see on p.26 that M. explained to YGE the impossibility of continuing resistance, much different from any resistance as you claim. M. Chetniks were engaged in active resistance (some even along Partisans) by time they understood that mantaining such intensity will lead them to self-destruction, after all, they were fighting the most impecable army, much superior in all levels, that was making reprisals to civil population in proportion of 1 to 100. I´m sorry Nuujinn, my initial claim on this can be better worded, however this matter is of high value for the article, and enters in complete contradiction with some of direktors claims with regard of this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the entire source, you must be very careful about context--it is a big book, very dense, and google's preview is but a relatively small percentage of the overall whole. You say, "It makes all sence, since they were following orders from YGE based in London and under Brittish influence." Roberts does not make this connection. If you don't have a source for that connection, it's just your opinion, and OR. In regard to the resistance activities of M.'s Chetniks, in my reading I was very surprised as to just how few acts of resistance were attributed to them, there really isn't much there beyond some minor acts of sabotage and the late rescue operations, and it seems that many of them were only undertaken when the British applied pressure or when M. wished to curry favor with the Allies. One cannot really have it both ways--M. did engage troops in direct confrontation, but those troops were the Partisans. If one claims that M. did not engage the Germans for whatever reason, one cannot then turn around and claim that M. was engaged actively in resistance actions against the Germans. But by all means, please bring some sources detailing actions ordered by M. to be undertaken by the Chetniks against either the Germans or the Italians.... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I feel you are escaping from the point here and also making your own OR with too much assumptions of your own. P. 26 and 27 are clear. They are there for everyone to read them. Someone else should mediate this and give his view. Do you want to discuss any other point? FkpCascais (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Fkp - look at Pavlovic as well which I believe you do have. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler´s New Disorder is available until page 36, and on that free content he describes the strong animosity that existed between Germans and Serbs. I selected here some important refferences dealing with the subject. I will have to see a way for getting these books, but in the meantime I was hoping other participants would help, but unfortunatelly most left me alone. I am also having some time difficulties lately related with my work and off-wiki issues, so I hope you´ll excuse me for that.

However, I do beleave that the pages 26 and 27 of Roberts source the following usefull statements: In order to avoid self-destruction the Yugoslav governament from London supported a policy of resistance in terms of setting up an organisation which, when the time was ripe, would rise against the occupying forces. British policy with regard to European resistance movements was to restrain them from activities which would led to their premature destruction. This Brittish policy coincided initially with the concepts on the basis of which Mihailovic´s movement was being operated." I found a text written by Donovan Touche and named "Truth" and found on the top of the link, here that also deals with the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read Pavlowitch at the library, he goes into great detail about why the Chetniks were at last given-up on by the Western Allies. In no uncertain terms, Pavlowitch explains that the primary reason for the switch to the Partisans was the fact that the Chetniks were inactive against the Germans, in spite of frequent urgings on the part of the British. The fact that the Chetniks were inactive (and in fact arriving at an understanding with the Axis) in spite of British demands was the reason for the switch to the far more effective Partisans. Sir William Deakin essentially says the same thing (p.227), explaining that once Mihailović's inactivity was at last confirmed by the German intelligence decrypts from Bletchley Park, Churchill decided to support the Partisans at the Tehran Conference.

The premise that the British "ordered" Mihailović to be inactive, and then condemned him for it, is quite absurd (and somewhat insulting I might add). The nonsense conspiracy theory, wherever you read it (apparently at http://www.generalmihailovich.com/), is in any case quite in line with the anti-British and anti-Western rhetoric of the modern Chetnik mythology (the "Western Betrayal" concept). The context that is so obviously missing from the above Roberts quote, is that the author refers to the earliest "initial" period of the conflict, when the Chetniks and the Partisans were quite unable to mount any serious uprisings without getting annihilated. Once the Germans were commited in Russia, however, Mihailović simply remained inactive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, let's see:

-"coincide" does not even imply causation. Note also that the line you keep quoting is about the coincidence of the YGE's desires with British policy, and does not support any assertions about M. See Roberts, p. 34-35 about how M. misled the British regarding his activities.

-using google books previews is not a substitute for having the entire volume available to you. We've been doing this a long time, and I find it curious that you have not been able to spend more time with sources.

-http://www.generalmihailovich.com/ is a blogger page, and the information there is a primary source apparently based in part on the recollections of one soldier. I do not consider it a reliable source.

-Were there any non-Serbian groups for which the majority of Serbs did not display hostility? The Chetniks were partially organized around the notion of creating a greater Serbia in which most non-Serbians would be expelled. See Roberts, page 48, where he notes that one reason the Chetniks did not engage the Axis forces was fear of Serbians becoming a minority, and Milazzo, page 92, which details the Chetniks desire, following an Allied victory and with Allied support, to reconstruct Yugoslavia along Serbian nationalist lines.

-Tomasevich sums up the relationship between M. and the British pretty well, pages 288-89: It would appear that in the course of 1942 the British government and to a large extent the Yugoslav government-in-exile as well acquired a pretty clear picture of what was going on in Yugoslav territory, including the fact that the M. Chetniks were engaged in anti-Partisan collaboration with the Italians in the Italian controlled areas, with the Nedic forces in Serbia, and with some of the forces in the Independent State of Croatia in German-controlled parts of Bosnia, and thus indirectly with the Germans, and that it was the Partisans who were really fighting the Axis and quisling forces. But the British, even with this knowledge, still continued to send M. some aid and to help the Chetnik cause by means of propaganda and exclusive recognition as a resistance group in Yugoslavia, and for some time they did not protest the Chetnik behavior to the government-in-exhile." But by the fall of 1942, British decided that M. "had to demonstrate goodwill and effectiveness" and that he should be persuaded by the YGE to cease fighting the partisans and either join them in their fight or fight on his own against the axis. To this end, they send Bailey to M. in December 1942. Also, on 20 dec, Sir Orme Sargent with the Foreign office informed the YGE that M. had stopped fighting in oct 1941, that only the partisans were fighting the axis, and this made it difficult to counter soviet propaganda against M.

Please, Fkp, get hold of an entire book and read it through, and take notes as you go. These are complicated issues and not dealing with sources in their entirety can lead to misunderstanding due to lack of context. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources are clear that Allies were not particularly bothered by the collaboration itself (though they were aware of it), rather they primarily resented the policy of non-confrontation Mihailović had instituted. In essence, the Allies wanted German divisions, particularly mountain divisions, tied down away from the Mediterranean theatre and Italy. This the Partians could deliver. In addition, Churchill wanted an effective military force in Yugoslavia as an added argument to his proposals for the invasion of the Balkans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pages 26 and 27 of Roberts are clear. All your effort here doesn´t change a single word from the sentences found there. Those statements are sourced and ready to go into article. As much as you want to present facts differently and to present me as incopetent you failed to present anything that contradicts those statements. PS: Nuujinn, what you said about Greater Serbia and Roberts p.48 is an OR of the most shocking kind. FkpCascais (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And another excellent example of why the mediation lasted 15 months. How's a guy supposed not to lose his "cool" after a year of this?

The first source you ever quoted here, two pages from Roberts, are fished out from that Serbian nationalist blog and are taken out of context. In fact, even taking them out of context does not entirely conceal the fact that they refer to the initial period. As Nuujin and myself pointed out, there are numerous sources which elaborate on British protests against Chetnik inactivity and collaboration (e.g. Deakin p.227, Tomasevich), and they do not contradict Roberts in the slightest. In fact, Roberts contradicts your out-of-context "interpretation" himself later on in the same book. As I said above, you are quoting typical anti-British "Western Betrayal" conspiracy theories which constitute the "Chetnik mythos" in modern Serbia. The idea that the British somehow "ordered" the Chetniks to be useless and then condemned them for it is completely absurd. We are now discussing a point that could not possibly be disputed among persons with any kind of basic understanding of the subject matter.

(Personal attack removed)

This is an altogether silly topic, it is pointless to "debate" the obvious. Fkp, your interpretation of the source is flawed, biased and in contradiction with all other sources - including the one you quoted. Please research the matter: discuss seriously or not at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note: In spite of my repeated efforts to discuss actual article changes, the discussion has once again been sidelined into a forum-like quasi-debate. In spite of previous evasive behavior I will ask again.
Does User:FkpCascais have a specific text proposal on how to cover the acts of collaboration of Draža Mihailović (not the Chetniks as a whole!) in the lead of the Draža Mihailović article? If not, I do not see what we are discussing here. The acts of collaboration did take place, their lead coverage is the core dispute here, and they have to be elaborated on somehow.

If we simply focus on arriving at an agreement regarding the lead text on Mihailović's controversial acts, based on sources, we can end this in a day. OR we could wait for the draft and then do the exact same thing days and weeks later.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have heard here all kind of unrelated argumentations that have nothing to do with that fact that the following quotation:

"In order to avoid self-destruction the Yugoslav governament from London supported a policy of resistance in terms of setting up an organisation which, when the time was ripe, would rise against the occupying forces. British policy with regard to European resistance movements was to restrain them from activities which would led to their premature destruction. This Brittish policy coincided initially with the concepts on the basis of which Mihailovic´s movement was being operated."

is very usefull information, sourced (Roberts, pgs 26 and 27), unoposed (nothing found in any other sources contradicts this) and ready to be used in draft. Everything Nuujinn and DIREKTOR presented has to do with events that took place much afterwords. Anything remotely positive towards M and his movement is allways oposed by all sort of argumentations even if directly quoted by the best possible source. I came into this discussion with open mind and and accepted the fact that my initial statement is not as correct as the direct quotation. Now it would be time to see some correction from your side, at least, since no serious arguments seem to come in contrary other than posterior events and unrelated OR, beside increasing personal remarks. Sunray, Fainites, please assist me in this discussion because I stand alone here. FkpCascais (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, we can say "coincided initially", because we have a source for it, but we will also have to show how M. soon diverged from resisting the Germans and turned his attention to the Partisans, how M. and the YGE misled the British and the US Americans (which first became apparent to Hudson as soon as he encountered M., so it's a tight timeline), and how the British government soon recognized that M. was deceiving them about his actions and ultimately withdrew support from him to back the partisans. We have to tell the whole story, not just the bullet points you prefer. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said the oposite, and you already included the "but also" part, so it was this one that was missing. I just feel sorry we had to go trough all this to righfully include it. I don´t agree with you about some of the rest, but we´ll debate that later. For time being are we agreed to include what the source says here? FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear god, this is just getting worse and worse. I am not even going to bother reading Direktor's comments. We are going to waste another year. Could we just stop this discussion, erase this piece of shit pretending to be an article, replace it with the improved draft and then try to work on it ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm pushing for. Skip towards the bottom and take a look at the proposals section. Where we're at right now is that the article is locked, and Sunray has asked us to come to agreement about some guidelines as to how to proceed. Fkp has not weighed in on that issue yet, and DIREKTOR has declined to discuss the proposals as he regards them as unnecessary. I think it would be helpful if you could comment on the proposals, as you've been around the block on this. If we cannot get consensus on how to proceed, my feeling is that the next step would have to be some kind of RFC or Arbitration, but that's just my opinion, and I'm not familiar with the latter. Long time no see, but glad to see you here. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem in giving my opinion, but could you be so kind as to sum it up for me ? Quite frankly, I do not have the patience of reading this whole page (or the other archived pages), and the mere idea of reading through any of Direktor's comments in the process is profoundly unpleasant to me. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Perhaps it's petty to point out in an article with much larger debates, but "Novembr" is a typo. good luck to all in resolving. Khazar (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of issues with the current version. I think we have a better one in draft, but right now it's locked up. We'd certainly appreciate help with copy edits or anything else when we get the draft up, but I'm not sure there's much point, as you say, in correcting this one at this point. Thanks for the head's up, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft

We have access to the draft again. The mediation talk pages are still locked, but I'm not sure whether that's intentional. I would like to replace the current article with the draft, as I have mentioned before. Any objections? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I beleave the draft still needs discussion on several parts. Tha main issues that were behind the mediation request are still not sloved. I don´t opose replacing the article with the draft, but all discussions related to it should be concluded under mediation process, and that the fact that we have the draft in place wan´t create a precipitated end of the mediation, or will create any pressure in that direction while some initial issues are still unsolved. I understand the urge to conclude this mediation, and I share the expectation, but it would be extremely important to resolve all major issues that were behind all disagreements, as a way to keep the article stable over main disputes in future. PS: We have other articles, related, and some templates, as Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the mediation is capable of solving anything further than it already has and these articles cannot be left in limbo. The draft is a very significant achievement and should now be utilised in the encyclopaedia. I suggest the draft be posted as the article and then all discussions as to proposed changes can take place on the talkpage enabling all interested editors to take part.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If the draft is better than what we have now (and I think it is), than it's better to have locked draft instead of original text :-) Kebeta (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the mediation is not capable of solving anything further. I´m not sure what this seems to exactly mean, but at least participants concerns should be taken into account first.

I will also like to see the "First Balkan War", "Second Balkan War" and "World War I" included in the draft. Those sections found in the current article are recent versions and well expanded about subjects that are missing in the draft. FkpCascais (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's try to stick with the question I posed, whether the mediation ceases, continues, succeeds or fails isn't the issue at the moment. We'll be editing this one way or another, so right now the only question is which version is better, the current one or the draft? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the draft is not finished yet and incomplete, isn´t it? And as I pointed out it misses expansion in several sections. What is the sudden rush? FkpCascais (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, I proposed doing this on June 3rd, 11 days ago, and we've been working on the draft for over a year. No sudden rush, I just would rather put what we have up. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I would also like to clarify some questions first. Some are directly related, as for instance, what about the parts where there is still some disagreement, and what about the sections that are better expanded in the current article? FkpCascais (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". I do not want this to get bogged down in the same way that every single discussion on these pages degenerates to. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is not my fault. I would rather hear the mediator´s view, and some answers to my concerns, first. PS: Am I having the impression that you all want to avoid discussing some of the problematic issues? I see you all too sync these days... And what you thought of using as lead? FkpCascais (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray is always welcome to comment. And stop please characterizing or making implications regarding the intent of other editors. Personally, I'm content to do without a lede until we reach consensus on what lede to use. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In respect to the points raised by FkpCascais: I agree that there are issues that arose in the mediation that have not been resolved. However, I think that the only way to resolve them is with reference to specific wording and sources in the article.

There is general agreement that the draft article can and should be moved to replace the existing (locked) article. The discussion can then continue here. I am willing to moderate the discussion and I have asked another member of the Mediation Committee to assist. It is important that the discussion be conducted in an orderly and respectful manner, in keeping with WP policies. I also would like to see participants make a concerted effort to limit the length of their posts. What would be the best way to achieve these goals? Other comments? Sunray (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sunray. I also welcome very much the inclusion of another MC member to help us. I will just like to raise some questions:

• About the draft, would it be possible to include the sections that deal with Mihailovic´s life before the WWII? As I know, those sections were recently expanded, and they are not the reason why the current version was so much critisized in the past. The current draft focuses almost entirely on WWII and these sections are missed. With some grammar correction and wikifiying much of the content can be usefull. I am talking about the sections between "early life" and "World War II". I beleave they are not connected in any way with the disputed areas at mediation.
• Also about the draft, wouldn´t be benefitial to agree on the lead first? I beleave we could easily have a simple lead that would follow the NPOV policy. I am willing to put it as priority, would that be OK?

Continued discussion from "An Arbitrary Break," above

:*I will like to adress the fact that at the discussion Talk:Draža_Mihailović#An_arbitrary_break I did my best to be clear, to work strictly with sources and to keep my posts as short as possible. Still at beggining I proposed correcting my initial proposal towards the use of quoted text in order to facilitate consensus. The problem is that afterwords I had to constantly repeat myself because I was oposed by huge posts (some even self-considered as "illumination") with much unrelated content including personal remarks and all sort of difficulties. Nuujinn seems to have agreed at the end, but he still ignored my question regarding the inclusion of it in the draft. The irony is that the lenght of the discussion seems to be used against me, and as a way to present future discussions as non-benefitial. Not discussing this issues now under mediation and leaving it to be discussed afterwords when I will stand alone against a group of editors seems to be extremely disfavourable to me, and from evidence of this discussion you can see that as much reason and sources that I have I will face all possible (and impossible) obstacles so my edits wan´t be included. Aware of this fragile position of mine, I need to have some guarantees that this issues will be dealt within the mediation. I don´t mind being eventually wrong, and I am willing to work towards consensus, but I am concerned that the urge of resuming this mediation will leave unsolved some important issues that the draft has not dealt with. Important is the fact that Nuujinn´s draft excludes some edits I would like to see included, but they will need to be discussed under mediation. (Personal comment removed)Someone may call me a conspiracy theorist, but it is just Murphy's law and basic thinking, why should they bother to go trough mediation if it would be much easier to insert those edits afterwords?

I apologise for my long comment, but I just can´t ignore some concerns I am having. FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to Fkp's remarks as I might in a moderated discussion. I have used a "collapse" template to refactor text that I do not see as either: a) directly pertaining to the discussion in this particular section, or, b) making specific reference to text in the article. I have also removed a personal comment, according to the guidelines we used in the mediation.

• In response to your first question, Fkp, I don't see a problem with expanding the section in the draft titled Early life and military career.
• With regard to the lead, we could use the lead from JJG's original draft as a working draft lead. The lead would logically be adjusted so it is an overview of the whole article.

The other addition to the draft would be the last section that participants worked on: "End of war, trial and execution. Does this approach make sense? Sunray (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion about personal remarks

PS: Sunray, I don´t understand why you removed my comment with regard of direktor. My concern is real and important. He is an active participant and he had openly expressed the will to include the disputed edits of his when the mediation ends. Perhaps I shouldn´t have said "I suspect", but rather the way I said it here now. This way seems that I said something wrong, or bad. Also, i will ask you please to see the discussion where some strong personal remarks were done against me, and they stay there freely. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) We cannot make progress if participants make personal remarks on this page. I am not able to moderate discussions prior to June 14 (i.e., in the past). While I will do so on this page from here on out, I really don't understand why mediation participants should need reminding. This article talk page is for discussions about the article. Period. Sunray (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is general agreement that the draft article can and should be moved to replace the existing (locked) article. If there is this consensus, would an admin please do so since the article is locked? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I based that statement on the agreement between active participants in the mediation that it was time to move the draft into the article. After the presentation at ANI I advised the Mediation Committee of this and said that I believed that there was a good chance that a moderated discussion here could produce a better editing climate among editors. The condition for unlocking the article is that we first agree on terms of discussion. Sunray (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A discussion can be moderated without terms of discussion, in fact most are. Is this requirement stated outright by MEDCOM? Also, since this discussion does have an impact on all participants, could you please post a link? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right that moderated discussions could be carried on without terms of discussion. However, what we need here is for participants who have rarely engaged in focused, civil discussion to begin doing so. For that to succeed, I believe that participants must all be clear on the expectations. I made a proposal to the MedCom list. I am willing to make my proposal available to participants, but I have already stated its essence here. Sunray (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If all of us were as civil as a dozen exceedingly civil nuns, and observed each-other's "feelings", it would still not bring us one bit closer to ending this dispute. That is not to say incivility has not occured in these discussions, or that civility isn't important, but as far as getting this thing back on track is concerned - civility should be the least of our concerns. I for one, for example, would not mind one bit if Fkp cursed me to high heaven if only he would finally clarify his position on the text of the article lead (one would imagine a year of "contemplation" might've been enough).

The mediation focused too much on "civility", sparking useless "Who's-the-Least-Civil" debates, and too little with actual progress and conflict resolution. In so far as incivility does not actually impair the celerity of the discussion, I at least could not care less if someone was careful or not to avoid "hurting my feelings". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Terms of discussion

In the interest of speeding things along, I wonder if we could have a brief discussion of the terms of engagement for once the draft is posted to the article. Since anyone will be able to join this debate, I suggest that we specify groundrules in the header box at the top of the page. Groundrules would be based on WP policies regarding talk page discussions. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not again.. The only "groundrules" specific to this discussion should be that actual textual article changes be discussed at all times, and that all claims or statements be closely supported by sources. The main danger here is devolution into a forum. For the rest we have Wiki policy, and I see no point in "basing" anything on it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, we have to make progress somehow. We're always bound by WP policies, so I am assuming Sunray is asking for us to proposal additional guidelines for us to follow voluntarily. Rules I would like to propose for consideration (and these are off the top of my head, so be prepared for some stupid ideas):

-An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.

-More agressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.

-That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.

-That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize.

-That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something the said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.

Just thoughts, feel free to call me out on any of them. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In talking about the discussion in general the main question to ask is: why did the previosu discussions fail? The rest are peripheral concerns that do not help us get rid of this annoying problem. In my view it is frankly obvious that the discussion devolves into a forum-like debate completely detached from the sources and any specific text changes.

It is really completely unnecessary to impose any "special rules" here, apart from demanding that unsourced claims be disregarded entirely, and that "general debates" be avoided. This, of course, is in-line with Wiki policy and guidelines anyway.

This is not the mediation, and I did not leave its flawed debating structure just to see it rebuilt here. I feel that if we are ever going to finish this, its time to try another approach, two rules: 1) propose specific article changes and 2) base them on sources. That is all. This will accomplish two things: we will be discussing what the sources say and not what users say, and this discussion (conducted properly this time) will have an actual effect on the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I do agree that the two conditions proposed by Direktor should be paramount. I also think that Nuujinn makes a very good point that all editors have an obligation to stay within WP policies. His additional suggested terms seem calculated to assist participants to do that. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Sunray (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well apart from the two a more stringent (but sensible!) enforcement of WP:NPA also to me seems to be a good idea, but I don't think it necessitates a special seperate "rule" as such. WP:NPA is the rule.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment about personal remarks

::::::Regarding of which, I can´t resist not showing my disapointmend about the strict scrutiny that my comments go trough, while other users comments stay unoposed. Sorry, but beside the difficulty of being numerically in disadvantage here, having this included sounds too much. Beside, the same editors that made the personal remarcs against me seem to be here ironically "agreeing" while doing the oposite. Just as exemple, this comment directed towards me yesterday (!) is in the discussion: "As I keep repeating: outside of nationalist phrases and folklore, you have no idea about the course of this war, and are not really equipped to discuss it. Your list of "statements" is an excellent example of how this thing goes on. You just keep saying things, things that are demonstrably and obviously wrong, without any kind of sources or even a layman's general understanding of the conflict." Do I have to explain how every single word in that comment is wrong and offensive towards me? I refrained from answering to such provocation hoping others will correct it, and that didnt happend. I´m sorry, but I see no reason to have a differenciated tratment from the others, and yes, bothers me very much and I see it as a disturbing negative factor for the discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, one of the points we have agreed to discuss (I asked and you all accepted it), seems to have come to an agreement, but I see no one further answering me or including the agreed in the draft. So, once I tried to edit the draft I was edit warred, but if I do things asking others to include the agreed I receve ignorance? Either we do as agreed, either there is no use agreing on anything, and yes, by now it is me loosing in both situations. FkpCascais (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Fkp, the desire to "win" is one of the problems here. There's no winning on WP except making a good article. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your illumination Nuujinn. Seems clearly that ignoring personal remarks to one side and doing the possible not to include in the article what rightfully belongs there must be a ideal way of getting such an article in your view. Honestly, I see too much people here talking too many things they in practice don´t follow and often do exactly the oposite. FkpCascais (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to call me out on something, be specific and produce a diff. Otherwise, I'm just not interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just stick to the facts and sources FkpCascais and leave aside the remarks about other editors and we will get along swimmingly. Nobody is fussy on these pages about strongly expressed views - but when ad hominem arguments become the substance of the debate it is counter-productive and disruptive. Might I also suggest that participants pick a particular discreet point per section so we don't get great, long all-purpose repetitive debates.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in other words saying exactly the same thing to the other participants. As you can see in the previous discussion I sticked to the facts and sources. While you seem to find this type of attacks against me perhaps o´right, I don´t see at all why should I be demanded more than others. Anyway, and knowing this doesn´t take nowhere but it does put the facts on papper, I also made several questions regarding the draft which are still unanswered, not sure why. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. no. No you weren't. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just some comments and questions and I'm sorry to be blunt.

-This discussion is devolving like every other one we've had.

-We apparently have consensus that the draft is better than the current version of the article. I cannot move it because the article is locked. I have asked a that an admin move it but that hasn't happened. We've been working on that draft on and off for over a year now I think so everyone has had plenty of time to talk about it, and we can continue to edit once the draft is in place either directly on the article page itself or in the mediation space. If I am reading the above correctly, we cannot get it moved until we agree to some terms here about how we are to proceed.

-Fkp, if you feel you have a valid complaint about DIREKTOR and that you cannot get satisfaction here, WQA is thataway. I see comments like the one you quote from DIREKTOR, and I agree that it would be better all around if he did not make them, but it sure as hell isn't my job to defend you. My suggestion is to find a mirror and take a long look.

-Fkp, you said we came to an agreement. I stop answering you because I didn't see any point in continuing that thread at that time. I would tell you why if I could do so without violating WP:CIVIL but that's simply not possible. The agreement you think we (you and I, I cannot speak for others) reached, doesn't exist.

-DIREKTOR, I've got thick skin and an old pair of asbestos undies left over from my usenet days. I'm not happy unless someone calls me asshole at least once a month. I drink a power breath milkshake made from corn cobs, garlic and jack-mackeral ice cream every morning (it will be interesting if anyone knows that reference, I just hope I still make it the way mom used to. I appreciate that you can take it, too, but restraint will be required if we are to make any progress, as failing to do so just provide fuel for a fire. I know that you believe we should not have to impose additional constraints to be able to do our jobs here, but apparently we do, since we have not succeeded yet.

Now, back to the point of this section. I made some proposals, can we focus on them individually below? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will in turn be direct. Yes, I do see a consensus to use the draft that was developed by participants in this long process. However, there is no appetite for continuing to witness the bickering that has been going on here. The article remains locked until the concerned editors agree to discuss it in an reasonable and orderly manner. You have made what I consider to be constructive proposals for editing harmoniously. Let's see if we can get some sort of consensus on them. Note that consensus is not unanimity. Sunray (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I'm not hopeful. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No offence to either of you, truly, but there is simply no way I shall restrict myself with an arbitrary set of requirements. "Consensus is not unanimity", true, but consensus is binding (to a certain extent) only with regard to article content - there is no provision for special talkpage rules to be imposed upon other participants by way of a "consensus" on the question (i.e. "we all agree these are our mini-policies for this talkpage, so you are forced to follow them"), and I certainly cannot imagine justifying any sanction or the altering of a user's posts with any such rules. This is a Free Encyclopedia after all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think you're missing a key point--you either agree or not, and what you do is up to you, we cannot enforce these rules on anyone. Strictly voluntary. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that we have policy and do not need additional special rules. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, but I suggest you reconsider--one definition of madness is repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different outcome. We've been doing this for over a year, and I see no substantial difference in the nature of the discussions from when I first started working in this area. There are a lot of eyes on us right now, and what happens next is entirely in our hands at this particular moment. I doubt that will continue to be the case unless we manage to come to some consensus about how to proceed, no matter what any of us do. If we do not come to some consensus about how to proceed, the only solutions to the problems I can envision involve bans of one type or another for a number of us, and I'm about ready to start drafting an arb com proposal myself. You recently said elsewhere that you have been repeating yourself on a particular issue for months. I think that's a fair statement, but the real question is, what do you expect to change by continuing to repeat yourself? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh.. rest assured that insanity is not defined by anyone as "repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different outcome". :)

While it is certainly necessary to enforce certain aspects of policy more strongly than before, that does not mean special rules we invent on the spot are required. I mean no offence, believe me, but I honestly do not think any of the rules will help us get one iota closer to ending this. In fact we've already wasted time and effort on them. The only thing we need here is that users, or more specifically User:FkpCascais, finally start supporting their statements, positions and claims with actual sources (as opposed to just saying them over and over and over again).

As I said below, I don't have much more to say on this. Imho the stuff below is really unnecessary and unhelpful, and this thread is a very mediation-like waste of time. Simply enforcing WP:V and WP:NOT, while focussing on specific subjects of dicsussion in order to avoid rambling tirades, will get this thing moving. More specifically, User:FkpCascais, who is the only "He Did Not Collaborate" participant has no sources - none whatsoever (amazing when you think about it). Indeed, simply by demanding that he does not post any (unsourced) "beliefs" for the first time in 15 months, we shall imho be able to make rapid progress. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the insanity definition, google it, it's misattributed to variously to Einstein and Franklin. I think you're wrong about the rest of it, but time will tell. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Insanity" is in fact defined in a number of ways, "repeating the same things" is certainly not one of them.. :)

Well since we seem to have time in abundance lets give it a go anyway. All I ask is that all statements and claims be based on sources, and that those that are not be entirely and completely disregarded as the gibberish that they are. Lets give it a shot when we can, trust me? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, regarding this stall in progress. After weeks of this I am now going to have to once again take a break from Wikipedia (but I will be keeping a close eye on goings on here). I will be able to edit maybe once or twice daily and I would appreciate it if we put this thing on ice for now. Incredibly, the discussion has been sidelined and derailed once again by User:FkpCascais's unsourced comments and claims - in spite of my significant and incessant efforts to the contrary - as well as by discussions on the best way to discuss discussing the discussion. This last thread really takes the cake.

Let me repeat: the sources are more or less in agreement on the controversial points in this debate. By simply sticking to the sources and NOT the users (a revolutionary approach!) the core of the dispute could have, should have, and still can, be resolved in a matter of days. But here we are once again engaged in inane nonsense discussions, while the issue is stalled for some stupid reason:

• it is disruptive and unnecessary to prevent the inclusion of the draft in the article by way of imposing "conditions" on the participants. Its a legitimate, undisputed edit.
• even if the draft is not posted in the article, what the hell is preventing us from discussing this issue anyway? The draft is available to all, and has nothing at all to do with the dispute in the first place.

More nonsense, more stalling.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

More aggressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

That editors working on the article restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or whatever other venue we wind up working in, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

Support

• Support, as proposer. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Opposition to idea of proposals in general

I don't think this is the way to do this. I will not be voting and, to be clear, no matter what I do not intend to abide by any rules other than Wiki policy. What I have proposed is the simple re-affirmation of two principles of editing lacking here (as opposed to "special" rules): that all statements be sourced, and that all discussion relates to text changes (WP:NOTFORUM). I will refactor my comments as I please, I will make my posts as long as I deem necessary, and I will not be subjected to more rigorous standards of behavior than policy proscribes.

This is not the mediation, this is an article talkpage. Can we stop discussing about how to discuss and move things along please? Not that I'm in a hurry, but my personal two-year limit on the duration of involvement in any one discussion might run out.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If editors cannot agree on terms for discussion, the only approach I can see working is for there to be rigorous observance of WP policy. Due to the walls of text that are added to this page daily, I cannot see effective discussion without some sort of restriction on length and frequency of posts. That suggests that moderator(s) will have to take a strong hand in maintaining limits and keeping discussion focused on particular topics. It would be better to have voluntary agreement amongst editors. Let's see other comments on Nuujinn's suggested guidelines and wrap this discussion up very soon. Sunray (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the necessity of sourcing all claims and focusing on the text? Lets say those are the terms and just move on. They're necessary either way.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have said above, those are prerequisites for an effective discussion. Given recent experience on this page, however, I am concerned about the length of posts. What would you propose to address that? Sunray (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If we closely define the subject of discussion (such as e.g. "collaboration in the lead") the problem shouldn't appear in any significant way, imo. After all, large posts are not a problem in and of themselves, it is when they are rambling tyrades on a million seperate subjects that they represent a disruptive element. If a user sticks closely to the subject, imo the discussion will not be disrupted or derailed even if the post is larger.

More to the point, to address that problem I would propose a note at the start of a discussion section that would advise users to 1) closely support all claims, 2) propose specific article changes, and 3) stick to the subject of this particular discussion (e.g. "resistance in the lead"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, those are pretty close to one of the proposals above. Feel free to recast my wording if you can make it work for you. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see only your third proposal is something I might support, the rest I am quite strongly opposed to, particularly the bit about talking about the lead last - the lead is what started all this and is the actual dispute, and I would like to start discussing the actual dispute while I'm still young. Also notice that the three points above are nothing that policy does not proscribe anyway, i.e. these are not special "rules" I am proposing but a mere reminder of, and a stricter adherence to, Wiki policy.

But I have said pretty much all I have to say about this. I will add that all this "discussing about discussing" is giving me nasty flashbacks to the mediation. Gentlemen, shall we move this along sometime this week? I can't fathom why posting the draft is conditioned on something, or why we can't discuss this anyway without the draft posted in the article, but since everyone seems to think all that is necessary for some reason - do it asap. Let the admins unblock the article for you to post the draft, and lets get this over with. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What you are proposing DIREKTOR is more of the same - which everyone else is sick to death of. FkpCascais makes unsourced assertions and you repeat yourself rigidly and ad nauseum in black and white terms. The talkpage fills up with aggressive bickering. Nothing else can be discussed. Nothing can be agreed. It is interesting that you are so absolutely certain despite sources that there is no such definition of insanity - despite it being a quote with which most English speaking editors are entirely familiar. Can you not see that "my way or the highway" is simply not working here? We need something to break the logjam. For example - if everybody else says leave the lead until last, how do you propose to enforce dealing with the lead first? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

To that I respond with one resounding: NO. I am NOT proposing "more of the same". What we're seeing in this thread is in fact "more of the same". We have still, up to this point NEVER had a discussion that is based only on what the sources say, incredible as that may sound. By simply demanding that all claims and proposals be based on references we would in fact be trying something "new and exciting" in this conflict. Why do you think this mess lasted for a year and a half? How do we solve disputes? We see what the sources say and we follow them. This has, quite unbelievably, not been done at any time. Throughout this mess, the two sides of the conflict have been treated completely equally, as two typical "squabbling Balkanites" - completely without regard to what the sources have to say. I.e. it did not matter whether dozens of sources are posted or not, there was zero impact on the course of the discussion.

To me the prospect of implementing useless and annoying "rules" that do not help to solve the above described fundamental flaw of this debate - is quite frankly annoying to the extreme. Not only do the proposals not address the main problem of this dispute (namely unsourced gibberish), but the proposals also demand that we discuss teh central issue last - once again! The sources are perfectly, 100% clear on this issue, and none, repeat none support FkpCascais's position of excluding collaboration - the whole thing was ridiculous from the start, now its just absurd.

I am getting old discussing this thing, Fainites, I want to stop blundering about, see what the sources say, and put together a consensus draft on the controversies in the lead - thus ending the goddamn dispute! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration in the lead

I've started this thread to see how participants would like to cover the collaboration of Draža Mihailović in the lead. I must point out this is the central and main question of this problem, which started some 16-17 months ago when User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement to that effect from the article's lead (this text was removed by the admin User:Sunray as a "personal attack" so I'm posting diffs; the conflict started with the edit of 04:49 16 February 2010 [3], altering text added on 3 September 2009 [4] and continued for days [5] [6] [7] [8] etc.).

I'd like everyone to please state their position, their actual text proposal, for solving this central issue. At this point there is little doubt that Draža Mihailović did commit numerous acts of collaboration and did actively (quote) "condone the collaboration" within his movement. However, if it is still held that Mihailović's collaboration should be disregarded and censured from the lead altogether, lets hear the reasoning behind such proposals as well.

One thing though: all claims and text proposals should be based directly on sources and should be in accordance with as many sources as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect I'll do anything with the article until we get guidance from Sunray on how he would like to proceed, as I see no point in continuing along a path lined with dead horses. I think I'll spend some time reading through the WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM docs to try and figure out those processes work in the meantime. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All this thread is about is to see what kind of edits the participants propose, if you have some idea on covering the collaboration in the lead, please post it so that your position in might be clarfified, as a prerequisite to actually discussing article changes.

I will bring this matter to the attentions of MEDCOM. Seems the discussion has been stopped in its tracks once again. Frankly it feels like the mediation was simply "transplanted" here (in spite of my best efforts) along with all its problems. I come here, try to have the first-ever sourced discussion on this, with edit proposals, and the same "blocks" are brought over.

While I won't jump to conclusions, if nobody wishes to discuss article edits the course is clear. Since nobody seems to have any real objections or alternative proposals to the paragraph introduced earlier, I move the paragraph be restored into the lead, at least until an alternative might be agreed-upon, in light of the fact that it is completely sourced and the facts therein generally undisputed (by sources). It was removed "because the mediation is on", and that has been shown not to constitute a legitimate reason for preventing edits to a Wikipedia article per WP:M. Simply "opposing" an edit without grounds is not sufficient cause to exclude it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy. Nuujinn is right. Also, please correct first all wrong you said about me in your opening statement. FkpCascais (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything "wrong about you" in the opening statement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. This entire statement is totaly phalse: "16-17 months ago when User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement". I stated that the lead could not be simplified to what you wrote, and your addition to the article was never neither long neither standing statement. You added it, here: [9] and soon after everyone can see how you edit warred numerous users about it (at least 10 rv just on that). And here are my first edits in the article, [10]. I never said that Mihailovic did not collaborate (please find diff for your claim, and your edit was evidently disputed for all the couple of months it was there, so in both claims you are wrong. PS: Sorry Sunray, but I had to present the real facts. FkpCascais (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor and Fkp, the personalized exchange is noted. Would you both now stay on topic (if there is anything more to be said on this thread) and leave past grievances aside? (Please don't respond here, just do it). Sunray (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Direktor's only goal is to block any kind of improvement on this article and that trying to work with him is pointless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, because during the thirteen months I was going along with the mediation everything went swimmingly... had you bothered to read anything of the above you might have noticed I support the inclusion of Nuujin's draft. All in all another useful, constructive comment JJG. Do you have a lead proposal or are you just here to post a personal attack or two? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's opinions, and even his very existence as a human being, are of no concern to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly glad to hear that, though I am flattered you still think of me as a human being. Consider yourself invited to join the "We Hate DIREKTOR Club". Now, do you have an actual proposal? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As I consider human beings are sometimes the foulest of all animals, being included thought of as one is not necessarily a compliment. Anyway, I would appreciate if the person above could refrain to address me in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think that Direktor and JJG have each made themselves clear as to their feelings. Let's get back to the discussion. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If the sources confirm collaboration with Germany, Italy and Ustaše (and they do), the only question is how to present this info into the lead in a way that will be OK with everybody. Once you guys solve this problem, the body of the article will be easier to present. For example, Draža Mihailović collaborate with Germany here (add reference)...Draža Mihailović collaborate with USA here (add reference)..and so on.--Kebeta (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they don't or, at least, it's more complicated than that. What I actually wrote in the first version of the draft was "Part of the various Chetnik groups gradually fought more against the Communist-led Partisans than against the Axis occupiers, some of them becoming auxiliary militias for the Italian and German troops, with Mihailović occasionally condoning their collaboration as a mean to defeat the communists. The Allies came to consider that Mihailović and the Chetniks were at best ineffectual, and shifted their support to the Partisans." I think that's somewhat accurate, though it could be rewritten. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The JJG version is very accurate and it goes along what User:Paul Siebert proposed here. The entire point of separating the collaboration out of context is done with purpose of acusation and punishement, and that is POV in my view. We already concluded once that the collaboration would fairly be described as "ocasional and oportunistic", and it is basically well described, although obviously we can discuss words, but presenting them simply as "collaborators" is simply untrouth and never happend that way. I beleave this source, Lindsay and Galbraith p. 274, actually describes well the relation between Chetniks and Axis: Chetnik official words towards Germans in a meating between them: "You are our enemy...". I mean, having in mind that Mihailovic was head-hunted all time, and that the anymosity between Germans and Chetniks was that big that they openly say to eachother that they are meating but they are enemies, says it all. FkpCascais (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nope"? :) Actually, JJG, you are dead wrong once again. You often make strong statements and people assume you're speaking from authority, but the actual facts are quite different indeed. The sources DO directly and unambiguously confirm numerous acts of collaboration of Draža Mihailović. And, as Kebeta says, the only real question is how to present them in the lead (per WP:LEAD). @FkpCascais, we have Draža on record ordering his regional commanders to "cooperate with the Germans" and explaining that he has to maintain a favourable "public opinion" by pretending to be opposed to this (to quote his own damn words), your clever use of actual Chetnik propaganda(!) and WP:OR does not really effect the facts in any decisive way.
Since the fact that the sources are have been actually' copied down from the publications by hand right on this talkpage is having no effect on the apologetic argument of the opposing side, I will simply keep copy-pasting them all the time. Since I really can't copy down entire chapters of books, these few more explicit examples will serve to prove my point. Draža Mihailović has:

• offered to "place himself at the disposal" of the German occupation (28 September 1941)

The Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". The two representatives further gave the Germans their commander's guarantee for the "definitive clearing of communist bands in Serbian territory" and requested aid from the occupation forces in the form of "about 5,000 rifles, 350 machine guns, and 20 heavy machine guns"

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration

• dispatched personal representatives to authorize the main collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and Fascist Italy (Major Boško Todorović, 11 January 1942),

Mihailović was aware of and condoned the collaborationist agreements [with the Italians] into which Jevđević and Trifunović-Birčanin entered.

— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias p.148

An agreement was concluded on 11 January 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks

• personally commanded some 12,000 to 15,000 Chetnik troops in a joint military operation with German, Italian, and Croatian quisling forces (January – April 1943),

In the final phase, the Battle of the Neretva River, the total number of Chetnik auxiliaries and other Chetnik formations closely working together with the Italians was between 12,000 and 15,000 men.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.236

Apparently to make sure that the crucial operation on the Neretva would be carried out successfully, and also to be present at the scene of the kill, Mihailović himself moved from Montenegro to Kalinovik where he joined Ostojić, who had up to this point been in command of operations in Herzegovina. On March 9 Mihailović wrote to Colonel Stanišić: "I manage the whole operation through Branko [i.e. Ostojić, Mihailović's Chief of Operations]. No action is ordered without my approval. Branko is keeeping me informed of even the smallest details. All his proposals are reviewed, studied, approved or corrected..." Note 122: But at his trial Mihailović stated that "there the operations were led by Ostojić, because I had no time to occupy myself with these matters, since I had really come to visit my troops and get acquainted with the real state of affairs."

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.241

• ordered his subordinates to "cooperate with the German forces" (20 November 1944), adding that he himself "cannot go along because of public opinion",

On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945.

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329

• and conferred personally with the german authorities "on five different occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945." (Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Volume I: The Chetniks p.329)

I would dearly like to hear the verbal acrobatics that are to follow this post. Are these facts to be ignored by the claim that I am "misrepresenting sources"? Then post your sources which contradict these assertions à tout de suite. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, stop doing this. Which Chetnik propaganda??? Walter Roberts (writer)??? Franklin Lindsay and John Kenneth Galbraith??? All my sources cited in this discussions are found here: User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23, and nothing there seems remotely similar to propaganda. This must stop. Each post of yours is highly provocative and disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am really not sure any more what is this. Is this some wp experient to see the patience of different users? Because this is not normal any more... FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"You are our enemy" is a direct quote from Chetnik WWII propaganda proclamations, Fkp. Once again you simply continue as if no references have been posted. Now please, stop ignoring the sources and tell me how you would cover these controversial actions of Draža in this article's lead? And please, don't repeat the above stuff about how the guy had a "full life" and there's "no room".. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here direktor: Franklin Lindsey and John Kenneth Galbraith. See page 274 and 275. If this is Chetnik propaganda, well, we have nothing to talk any more. It was the commander of German Southeast Armies, Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, who told him what he was told by Chetnik representatives on that meating. Chetnik representatives said: "You are our enemy, you have invaded our country, we abhor having to deal with you, but we are forced to do so in order to get guns to fight out greater enemies, the Communists." I beleave the sentence descibes perfectly well the relation between them. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys stepped on each other --Nuujinn (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is strange. I certainly didn´t edited any direktor´s comments. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird.. (lets not start a new section though). I'd still like to hear FkpCascais's comments on the above references. I am curious if you can disprove them in some way, Fkp, or failing that, I am interested in hearing how you would cover such controversies in the lead? Should you ignore them once more, you will surely vindicate my continued complaint that you simply "go on debating" regardless of posted references.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I already answered to you. For time being I find JJG solution as the most NPOV and the one that most fairly describes the real situation for those years. You also brought the experienced editor User:Paul Siebert who also seems to favour a lead with that kind of description. It is strange that you said that you agreed with him, however, here you seem to defend something different. FkpCascais (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

JJG's highly biased and one-sided "solution" completely ignores the above references and facts (Paul does not support it, Fkp). On what grounds should we ignore the above? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"One sided"? The JJG proposal (or any similar one) is actually "no sided", and that is exactly why it is good. Your sources are usefull for the article, but for the lead they are out of context, as we should certainly enter then into several inside explanations for making the readers get the real idea.

With regard of Paul Siebert, I have the impression that he disfavours any simplifications as the ones you propose, but anyway, if you disagree, maybe we should ask him for his opinion again, although it is not my foult if we come to bother him again, because I beleave I understood very well what he expressed, meaning, objectivity and neutrality, very similar to the approach JJG used in his version. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If by "out of context" you are referring to the fact that Draža also resisted the occupation at certain times and places, we can add the context without much dispute I am sure. I would argue that Draža's resistance and collaboration each provide the context for each-other. My question is: why do we ignore these sources and thsi aspect of Draža's WWII activities? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is "ignoring" your sources. You can´t not consider the fact that you need to present the situation as it really was, and you can´t leave the idea that they just collaborated, when in fact the collaboration also happend only in "certain times and spaces", not forgeting the extreme difficult situation in which they were found. However, even at those collaborations in certain times and spaces, there are some inconsistences, that even make me doubt if the word "collaboration" is really the adequat one to describe their few joint actions against Partisans, beside the fact that they kept the open war between them considering themselfs enemies trough all time, beside resistance efforts troughout time periods of the war, from first to last year. Not sure if that is collaboration, since collaborating forces in WWII were something quite different. FkpCascais (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning my dreams: I would not dream of forgetting any aspect of the difficult situation the Chetniks faced (in fact I said myself that in Serbia and Bosnia they were more or less forced to collaborate). I would not dream of forgetting that collaboration took place at certain times and places, and I would not dream of forgetting the resistance that also took place at certain times and places.

However, I must oppose you and say that you are suggesting we ignore the sources, as you support a version which quite plainly does. You are suggesting we ignore the collaboration because of the resistance and the difficult conditions Draža faced. I am suggesting we include both and ignore nothing. The word, "collaboration", Fkp, is not "my" choice, but is the term used overwhelmingly by the sources for tehse activities and hence cannot be ignored on the basis of your own WP:OR estimates of propriety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So then, I oppose your position that some actions and events (collaboration) must be excluded due to other events (resistance and the difficult situation). Why would you oppose the inclusion of both? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the interpretation of the Tomasevich is a subject of debates, let's see how the scholars interpret him. W. A. Owings (Slavic Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 375-377) in his review on "THE CHETNIKS: WAR AND REVOLUTION IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1941-1945. By Jozo Tomiiasevich. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975, and on THE CHETNIK MOVEMENT AND THE YUGOSLAV RESISTANCE. By Matteo J. Milazzo. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, writes:

"Any treatment of the Chetlnik movement inevitably must focus on the question of collaboration. Both Tomasevich and Milazzo clear up any remaining doubt that "Chetnik" groups, purporting to be affiliated witlh the Mihailovic movement, engaged in close and prolonged collaboration with the Italian and German occupations, and in the end even with the Ustaslha. It is equally clear that Mihailovic and Tito agreed that in the long run it was the revolutioin, not the war, that wvas most portentious for Yugoslavia's future. As a result, politically expedient considerations caused even Tito to consider at least the possibility of Partisan collaboration with the Germansa revelation which, when first publicized by Roberts, created something of a furor in Yugoslavia. On the question of collaboration any "bad guy-good guy" dichotomy is simplistic"

In other words, it is clear that the partisans were the primary enemy for Michalovich (and, accordingly, the Chetniks were primary enemy for the partisans), so Mihailovich did contact Nedic and German authorities to get a help in his struggle with Tito (and Tito also didn't rule out a similar opportunity, although just in theory). In other words, we have to concede that some Mihalilovich's steps make post-war accusations in collabrationism partially justified, although the fact that Mihailovich conducted anti-German policy also cannot be ignored. In any event, since the dispute about Michalilovich's collaboration meets a criterion of "major controversy", it must be reflected in the lede, although I do think we mush avoid oversimplifications.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Response to direktor: I am just saying that having in mind all events trougout the war and what all sources say about everything, I find JJG´s lead as the one that most fairly portrays the events. I saw your last proposed version, and I still see you giving the impression that they were just another collaborationist movement, and we can´t simply ignore that the differences between Chetniks and other collaborators are huge. For instance, while collaborating forces:

• supported nazi ideology, Chetniks didn´t.
• while most collaborators had their own governaments (ideologically nazi or fascist), Chetniks were fighting to restore the Yugoslav monarchy that was waiting in London and workng with Allies.
• while collaborating movements were in alliance with Germans, Chetniks weren´t, and they were openly considered enemies troughout the war, with just the exeptions of peace-deals while fighting against Partisans. It is also useless to discuss weather M would have wanted a stronger deal, or not, because anyway Germans never accepted any long-term deals with him.
• while collaborating forces fought against Allies, Chetniks were not in war with any allied nation, and they were officially in war against Axis states, right the oposite of "collaborators".
• while collaborating forces worked along Germans in order to create a "new order", Chetniks had a completely different agenda, and even stated their aim was to expell foreign troops, refering to Axis ones, and "liberate" the country. By that, I supose they also include Partisans, but again, that doesn´t make them "collaborators".
• while collaborating forces leaders usually worked along Hitler and other Axis leaders, Mihailovic was head-hunted by them and never meat with any of them...
• basically, they didn´t agreed on any single point beside being both the enemies of the Partisans, and the main purpose of all the three sides was to get rid of the other two.

None of this goals and courses of action has anything to do with "collaboration ideology" and usual labeling. The word itself can possibly be used in the article, but it must be used with extreme caution and precition, cause otherwise we are using a terribly heavy word in a very wrong generalisation. PS: I answered to you direktor in rush, and there are possibly more points that could be added here in "differences" section, and I really don´t know which exact sources for this to present to you, since I supose all authors agree with this, or Chetnik "instrukcije" also confirm most of it. I answered to you so you can understand why I find wrong your proposed version. I hope we can archive a healthy discussion on this. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had this comment writen before I saw Paul´s response. The problem is that Tomasevic is the one describing collaboration as "prolonged and close" but such description seems not to be the one used by other authors, and some facts make it hardly be possible to be of that intensity. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Owings writes about Tomasevich and Milazzo, so the opinion of the former seems to be shared by at least another scholar (+ Owning himself). Therefore, this viewpoint should be reflected in the lede, as one of existing viewpoints.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal of indicating exactly which scolars claim what has already been discussed and accepted by most of us as a possible ideal solution, however direktor was the one who rejected it. That happend while he was still at the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp. That is simply untrue the mediation reached no consensus on anything, and while I haven't the slightest inkling of what you are talking about, I assume "most of us" probably means "you and your pals". In any case please o please do list the sources that disagree so that all sources can be reviewed, you should be able to access them easily if what you say is true. If you have none, please do not make such claims anymore. The mediation does not concern me in the least.

I oppose your position that some actions and events (collaboration) must be excluded due to other events (resistance and the difficult situation), which of course is the state of affairs in JJG's version that you support. Again: why would you oppose the inclusion of both?

@Paul. The "opinion" is also shared by Ramet (as was quoted frequently), Pavlowitch, and other scholars as well. The exact words used are "systematic", "extensive" and "enduring" collaboration. Its not one of the viewpoints, its the only (possible) viewpoint to be heard from any serious scholar. I have yet to see any source in contradiction (aside from quotes of the Chetniks' own propaganda), though I have heard about these phantom publications far too often. You will notice how rhetoric is used here to "counter" plain facts and references.

P.S. Paul, here you can read some of the peer reviews on Tomasevich (according to the AHA "the most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia"), as well as Tomasevich's detailed examination of Partisan contacts with the Axis. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, could you please stop using expressions like "pals", I mean, which "pals"? You had been the only one oposing for the citation inclusion at least twice, as I recall, the first one was still at beggining, when you expressed concern about Tomasevic´s citations loosing credibility as he is Yugoslav/Croatian historian, and because you considered that there was no reason for that. Then at the mediation, I beleave it was our mediator Sunray (not 100% sure), who proposed as solution to cite exactly who claims what, thus including all views with their authors, and everyone agreed, but you again refused by saying that no one contradicts Tomasevic.

The question is not about contradicting your sources, but about WP:UNDUE so we can correctly descibe and summarize all content. I really can´t see how you can find fair to descibe the movement equally (or even worste) that some real collaborating forces. PS: I don´t recal ever hearing Pavlovich saying something similar. Which statement of his were you refering? FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, just post the sources please. If there are none, as I am sure is the case, then please immediately stop wrongfully citing WP:UNDUE on a subject where a dozen scholars say one thing and none contradict them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What happend with Pavlovich source saying what you claim? Here, User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23, are some sources related to the issue and that partially contradict some statements you have been making. But, it is not finished yet. Anyway, do you have any proposal for the lead, or is it the last one you proposed? FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already read through all of those. These quotes simply describe Mihailović's resistance. They do not contradict collaboration. It seems I'll have to repeat again: the fact that Mihailović engaged in resistance does NOT mean he did not also engage in collaboration. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive, do you understad this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So then, keeping in mind all of the above, namely that 1) sources certainly do exist in great number that describe collaboration (using that same term), and 2) that acts of resistance do not somehow erase acts of collaboration, lets try and go at this again.

Do you have any real justification for not including both the resistance and the collaboration. The JJG version you propose ignores collaboration in the lead. You mentioned sources, but all they do (at best) is confirm resistance, that has no bearing on the issue of collaboration - and is not disputed anyway. Mind you, the sources quoted for collaboration also describe resistance (and probably much better and in gretaer detail than most of the sources you quoted).

This, then, seems to be the crucial question: as opposed to confirming the acts of resistance (which are not disputed), are there sources which contradict collaboration? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, could you please respond to the inquiry? Should you not respond, i.e. if no sources are posted, the only logical conclusion is that they do not really exist (as is my strong suspicion), and that your quoting of WP:UNDUE was quite inappropriate. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually nobody here (with the possible exception of FkpCascais on occasions and in relation to the Germans) is suggesting Mihailovic didn't collaborate. That is not actually what the problem is here. Neither does the new proposed article suggest they didn't collaborate. The problem here has been the black and white POV pushing on the point. That first diff DIREKTOR posts above to show this in fact shows what dreadful POV nonsense the earlier version was as well. Yet again DIREKTOR posts that FkpCascais insists there was no collaboration at all, demands FkpC produces sources to prove this and then copy-pastes his own list of quotes and reviews (with which everyone is now so familiar). Meanwhile, other editors are put off by the aggressive, ad hominem tone of it all. Personally I think it is inevitable that collaboration should be fairly represented in the lead - but such a discussion seems premature and doomed to failure until editors can start doing some serious work on the article. Some of the editors here have not had an opportunity to see the new proposed article arising from the mediation. (The JJG version has already been worked on during the mediation). What I would propose is that both DIREKTOR and FkpCascais stop reprising their age old argument.Other contributors contributions are lost in this. It is not necessary to always reply to every post. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Fainites, this dispute is at its core between Nuujin and myself on the one side, and Jean-Jacques Georges and FkpCascais on the other. Both FkpCascais and Jean-Jacques Georges are in fact suggesting that Draža Mihailović himself did not collaborate. Or rather, they support that position to all effects and purposes, demanding (from the start) that coverage of the collaboration be excluded from the lead. Your assumption however is quite logical considering the circumstances: who would imagine such an obvious fact is actually disputed? (The earlier version was indeed POV nonsense, it was years ago before anyone had the chance to do some serious research on this; my position has been softened in accordance with the sources, that of the opposing parties' has not been.)

Now, how would you propose I go on discussing with these fine folks about the best way to describe collaboration in the lead, when we cannot even get them to agree on the obvious necessity of including it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I propose you go on discussing with these fine folks? Politely and calmly. Personally I would have thought what needs to go in the lead will become more obvious as the article improves. It's a key issue of the whole Mihailovic story - but it's a key issue from a number of view points as to the extent/why's and wherefores/effects/mythology (both ways) and so on and so on. I don't get the impression FkpCascais is denying collaboration. Just that it needs to be placed in context and that it would be historically inaccurate to simply lump Mihailovic in with either regimes like Pavelic's who couldn't wait to set up an ultra-nazi state and start massacring "enemies" even before Yugoslavia was defeated, or quisling efforts like Nedic. Mihailovic always seems to me to be between several devils and several deep blue seas. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask bout the manner of discussion, I inquired as to how you propose I should have moved on to more sensible issues, such as how to describe this neutrally, while the very inclusion is still disputed. Context? Bloddy of course! It needs to be made perfectly clear these people are not the Ustaše or the Nedić government, that they did do some resistance (and I know where, when and how), that their "collaboration was not based on ideological affinity and was not without reservations either" (Tomasevich p.246). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I agree with most you said, but I am not sure if you are being correct by saying that I fail to produce sources. I am a bit confused about which exact sources does direktor ask for, and how can I present him sources about collaboration when the subject is aproached in a different way by other authors. Direktor somehow disregards those sources by saying that only sources that mention the word collaboration count. I don´t have sources that state that M did not collaborated, neither that is, neither was, my point at any time. However some authors does seem to present the subject in a different perspective, less acusational, and according to the general situation at that period.

With regard to the rest, I completely agree with you Fainites about everyting else you said, and I didn´t answered to direktor because I had nothing new to add by now, and by that I was also giving space for other participants to express themselfs as well. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - my remark about "failing to produce sources" related to demands that you produce sources to show that Mihailovic did not collaborate - which I do not understand to be your position - as you confirm above. I have noted that you have been reading sources and collecting quotes. DIREKTOR has now accepted Nujinns terms of discussion (apart from the lead) so hopefully now we can just get on with making some progress.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp. Since there are numerous sources which describe Draža's collaboration, naturally what you need are sources that actively deny Draža's collaboration (the problem is they do not exist of course). I do not believe you when you say you are confused about this. I most certainly DO NOT disregard sources on the basis of whether they use the word "collaboration", it is simply that your sources do not even talk about Draža's contacts with the enemy ("collaboration" whatever you want to call it), but about Draža's resistance - whih is a completely different, essentially undisputed subject. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, no problem, because you are right that I could have done, and do more, and I have been a bit "lazy" lately about it, however I do have a personal problem which enables me to make online purchases, so I´ll have to see with time how to organize myself. @DIREKTOR, I understand what you mean, but on the other side you disregarded the source I presented to you where a German commander described Chetnik approach to them, but you said it was Chetnik propaganda (?!)... FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

To maintain order on this page, the only refactoring should be by a moderator. I am still considering whether I want to be involved in that capacity, as are other mediators. Nuujinn has raised another concern with me that I consider significant: excessively long posts. This was first raised by Fainites on June 9 and some editors have refused to limit the length of their posts. Talk page guidelines set out a number of good practices, including: "Be concise". My other concern is the frequent ad hominem on the talk page. I no reason for remarks directed at the individual, rather than the content at issue. I will make a statement about behavioral expectations by the end of the day Monday.

Thank you Sunray, but "behavioral expectations" on Wikipedia are quite well outlined in WP:NPA and elsewhere. While imo we all strive to be concise and shall continue to do so, I do not think we need to have you impose any non-policy restrictions on the length of talkpage posts. And anyway the problem here is obviously not so much the length of individual posts as their large number. Refactoring other user's comments is, as we all know - contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I've yet to see any exceptions for moderators with regard to this (quite basic) rule outlined aynwhere either in WP:RPA, WP:TPO, or WP:M. I will be reporting any changes done to my posts. Quite the opposite, according to WP:TPO:

• "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

In general, there is really no point in starting yet another thread on the same subject. I think we've all pretty much said all we have to say on this. In my view, the proposed guidelines do nothing at all to address the real, quite serious problems of this debate (namely a near-complete lack of adherence to sources), and are generally a waste of time. Frankly, this new thread diverts attention from real discussion (and actual progress imho) that is being done. The danger now (quite endemic to the mediation) is that the discussion will once again shift from discussing the central issues of the dispute - to this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the continual disruption on this and other related pages, such behavior cannot be tolerated. The ArbCom decision concerning Balkans-related articles, WP:ARBMAC states:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums...

Editorial process

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes... [...]

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision...

If I agree to moderate this discussion, I will rely on ARBMAC as guidance. I will ask one or more uninvolved administrators to monitor the discussion and apply sanctions as necessary. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of ARBMAC and its findings, in fact I frequently quote it to participants in the Balkans articles. Please explain, however, which part therein is any different than the requirements of WP:NPA? Which part do you understand as allowing moderators to refactor any and all comments on the contributor?

Also, is it not required that a moderator have the consent of the discussion participants before "agreeing to moderate"? With all due respect Sunray, we've been at this for fifteen months under your guidance - to no avail. And if there are indeed others considering moderating, don't you think it might be time to "pass on the torch", as it were, and see whether a different approach might render more immediate results? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR - Sunray is not the only one concerned. This talkpage is not making progress. It is descending as others do so often into shouting, repetitive TLDR posts and ad hominem posts. ARBMAC exists because this is a fraught area. The particularly relevent point of the post above is The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. We are rapidly approaching that point.

I propose we accept Nujinns proposals and try to work to those. If there are any obvious problems the terms can be adjusted. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake what difference does it make whether posts are over or under 500 words?? Or whether later modifications of one's posts are in black or purple? That is obviously not why this discussion is bogged down, far from it. Rigorous standards of adherence to WP:NPA do not need a special "rule".. I'm not saying the discussion is getting any better, I'm saying this is obviously not the way to fix it.

*Sigh*... fine. I agree to the "terms", all except the one to discuss the lead last. Where the others are just an unhelpful nuisance, that one promises to actively delay solving this dispute even further. Now please gentlemen, take the bull by the horns and help us finsih this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much DIREKTOR. As for discussing the lead later rather than first - you can't force everyone to you know. You've set up a section and it is up to other editors whether they choose to contribute to it now or later.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's Rules of Engagement

1. An arbitrary limit for each of us, 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, editor talk pages, ANI, anywhere.
2. More aggressive policing of personal attacks. Not sure how to do this, but the insinuations of motive, ethnic references, implications of collusion, and all other personal comments about editors must stop, as they are disruptive to discussions. I suppose the best way to handle this aspect is to ask the mediators or uninvolved admins to watch over discussions and issue short term blocks as needed. Hatting and deletion of comments seems to have little effect.
3. That we handle content discussions by dealing with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.
4. That participants not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color (purple is very nice) and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place. I propose this as it will ease finding diffs if we wind up in arbcom and should reduce the appearance of revisionism.
5. That editors working on the article restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or whatever other venue we wind up working in, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

The only one not agreed is; #That we deal with the lede last, and simply leave it out until we are done with the rest of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, done in broad strokes. Until we have an article we can agree on, I contend we have nothing to summarize. However, editors can't be forced to discuss this first if they don't want to so I dare say discussion on the point will arise as and when enough editors think this appropriate. Can I suggest that each topic for discussion is clearly labelled as such in it's own section, once the new article is posted.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea, I second that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I beleave all groundrules that enforce the ARBMAC guidance for discussions are seriously necessary, and I will support them as I allways did. My only complain goes with the fact that users breaking them had been too much forgiven thus making the rules loose credibility. Anyway, ith regard with the lead discussion, I don´t mind leaving the thread open and ongoing, instead of postponing it, or closing it for now... I beleave Fainies sugestion, if I understood right, for making specific separate threads for each subject is perfect, and each of those threads can be discussed in its own rythm. FkpCascais (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree to the guidelines I have proposed? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Nuujin.. sure :). All except the one on discussing the lead last. As long as the requirement that we discuss properly, that is fully in accordance with sources, remains the paramount "rule". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Now then, can we please agree that it is necessary to elaborate in the lead on the collaboration of Draža Mihailović? With context of course. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not here. This is not the right section. Also - we need to get the mediation article posted first.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec, ec...) Nuujinn, I do find a bit exagerated the limit of 3 posts/day on all related articles, because if we limit ourselfs to make short posts, then 3 of them would seem quite too short when discussions are actually ongoing. By limiting the posts to 3/day on subject, you are somehow making that people would use more words per post to better express themselfs. I rather think that a rule saying that no 4 successive posts betwen 2 same users are allowed, thus making a discussion to stop before hearing a 3th side opinion, but without slowing that much the rhytm of the debates... FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Fkp, but do you agree to the rest of them? And part of the problem is that the long posts are tiring. What I would like to get to is a point where people are doing more thinking and reading, and less talking, and considering their arguments at some length before posting. The hope is that if we can slow down discussions we'll have more light and less heat. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the much more positive tone that the discussion has taken. Thank you all. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all the rest of the points Nuujinn. The lenght of the posts I find o´right, and I beleave I had put it in use for some time now; I have been calling for a more strict policing on PA for some time now; I already agreed that we should discuss using sources, although I beleave this point is directed towards my general ideas that I want us to discuss in the thread that I opened back; I agree with refactoring, and I allways opened debates on talk pages and searched for consensus for every single proposal of mine for the draft; and I fully agree we use of this talk page for everything related, and not dispersing discussions on several pages.

I even agree with the idea behind the proposal of 3 posts/day, however, as you see, we have been having relatively short posts with kind of "normal" debate, so it would be sad to interromp such discussions just because we can´t add a 4th post... In those situations, better than limiting ourselfs, it would be better to limit to maximum 2 or 3 posts between 2 editors, before necessarily stoping to hear a 3th party voice... That would disencourage editors from repeating themselfs and will necessarily bring a 3th user view on the subject before continuing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the idea of the 500 words limit for each post with one exception. The limit refers to the users' arguments, and the quotes from reliable sources (with full references) should not be included in this limit. In my opinion, the discussion will be more fruitful if every participant will supplement every his short statement with an extended quote from some reliable source. The quote should be extended to demonstrate that the author's words have not been taken out of context. I saw too many unsupported claims on this talk page and too few sources, and I do not think that by shortening of the length of the posts the situation will be improved. Moreover, to make a discussion more concrete, I would propose to ignore any statement that has not been supported by appropriate quote and full reference (author, book/article, publisher/journal, year, volume, page): for instance, if someone believes that the source X should not be used in the article/lede, he is supposed to provide a quote from some highly reliable source that rejects the source X as inaccurate, fringe, biased or obsolete. I also suggest to create a list of the sources that all parties consider reliable and appropriate for the usage in the lede. With regard to other sources, in a case of any doubt I suggest to resolve the issue at WP:RSN, and, when the issue has been resolved, not to return to that again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Requiring to ignore unsourced claims is the most important rule we could possibly institute with regard to getting this discussion on track. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul's approach makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of posts

Reviewing the discussion above, I think it might wise to set a daily cap on number of words. That way participants wouldn't have to worry about the number of posts. However, it would encourage people to monitor their verbiage and be lean of expression. As a guide, Nuujinn's suggested criteria (previous section, above) peg out at about 265 words. So if we set a cap at 750 words/day, it might produce a more reasonable level of discourse. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That will slow down the discussion. Are people supposed to wait 'till midnight before saying something they want to say? This is getting silly. Opposed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets see how we go with Nujinns proposals, with the exception of quotes. If it doens't work - we can change it. We know what we are trying to avoid - repetitive, TLDR heated and personalised arguments. Can peopel also,if they have previously set out long lists of quotes, provide a link if possible rather than set it all out again?Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that we make a quotes subpage, and put the text of quotes there with an anchor of Author-year-page so we can link to them. That way we can all work through the same material, and we can exclude that material from other material easily. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could simply use collapsible boxes..? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We could, but it seems that the same quotes get brought up regularly, so I'm trying to think of how to reference them. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How about establishing a sub-page for sources and quotes? In discussion, participants could refer to a source using the Harvard method, e.g., (Roberts, p. 151) or could provide a link to the quote on a sub-page. Sunray (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I created Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/ and put in a sample. Go to... --Nuujinn (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for discussion (last look)

Here are Nuujinn's proposed guidelines with edits and rewording (of # 2) for, a last look:

1. Participants will restrict themselves to 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, user talk pages, ANI, anywhere.
2. Personal attacks or ad hominem remarks will be removed and participants warned in accordance with WP:ARBMAC. Repeat infractions may result in a topic ban.
3. Content discussions will deal with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.
4. For ease of reference, participants will not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place.
5. Editors working on the article will restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or moderators' talk pages, and not post to other editors's talk pages.

If these guidelines are agreed on, we may begin the discussion. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

6. In a case of disagreement about appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain sources for the article, or about their reliability, the issue should be resolved at WP:RSN, and once the consensus is achieved on the RSN, it should not be contested in future, unless new evidences have been provided.

7. Any statement about some historical fact or event must be supplemented with the reference to some reliable source that that directly supports the material. It is a responsibility of the user who makes such a statement to provide needed links to the quote from the reliable source that supports this statement.

8. The factual statements that contains no references to RS are deemed just a personal opinions of the users who make them, and therefore have a zero weight and can be ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• All of the above looks good to me. I'll have limited net access starting tomorrow for a few days, but will check in when I'm back online. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Topics for discussion

Would participants be able to propose the topics that need to be discussed? Also, what should be tackled first... next, etc? Sunray (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is about nothing else than collaboration in the lead. Get an agreement on that and I promise you: the conflict disappears. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the lede serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects, this issue is inseparable from the question if the article devotes enough attention to the collaboration. It it does, we simply have to bring the lede into accordance with the article. If not, we need to come to a consensus about the article, and only after that can we speak about any modification of the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, this dispute is about the lead - so let's solve it. This issue has been discussed for so long we all pretty much have a good idea of what we think should be in the lede. Secondly, the article already has a an entire separate "Collaboration" section. And most importantly, we should not base a summary of this crucial issue on anything other than the sources themselves. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor is correct that the dispute was, in part, about the statement in the lead that M. was "a collaborator." Paul Siebert points out that, according to the Manual of Style, the lead must be in accordance with the article. Therefore, I suggest that we review the collaboration section in the article and agree on the appropriate way to deal with the issue of collaboration. The order, then would be:

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration section
3. review other sections, and
4. finalize the lead.

What are the sections, other than "Collaboration" that need to be reviewed? Are there any other topics for consideration? Sunray (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead definitely has to cover the "Greater Serbia" issue, since collaboration with Axis powers and war crimes against non-Serbs were just an instument in main Draža's plan, which was "Greater Serbia". In the article there is already a section ("Ethnic cleansing") about this and about Draža Mihajlović's infamous "Instrukcije" ("Instructions") of 1941. Here are some good sources for this:

• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. pp. 148–149. ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. p. 99. ISBN 0890967601, 9780890967607. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Per WP:LEAD this has to be in the lead as this was Draža's main objective. He collaborated with Axis powers and he was against Axis powers in order to achive his objective - ethnical cleansed "Greater Serbia". The collaboration with Axis powers was just one way in achieving this. --Kebeta (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta , can you put the text of the sources you are citing into Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/ so we can reference them there? But I fear this is exactly the kind of discussion we really cannot have until we come to agreement on specific sections in the draft. I do not believe that the sources support in general the notion that M.'s primary goal was ethnic cleansing, and I would rather we hash out what we want to say about ethnic cleansing and the Greater Serbia issue in an article section, in detail, before trying to weigh the relative importance of that issue against all of the others in the lede. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujin. On pp.145-146 of The Three Yugoslavias Sabrina P. Ramet states in the introduction to a description of the Chetnik movement:

Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...)

For the Chetniks the war provided an excellent opportunity to put their program into effect, and between autumn 1942 and spring 1943 the Chetniks carried out slaughters of Croatian [and Muslim] civilians in a wave of teror (...) Roatta [General Mario Roatta], commander of the second army, protested these "massive slaughters" and threatened to cut off Italian supplies and money if Chetnik depradations against noncombatant civilians did not end..

@Sunray. How about a slight change?

1. Move the draft to the article
2. discuss and finalize the collaboration and ethnic cleansing sections
3. finalize collaboration and ethnic cleansing in the lead (concluding what are obviously the main issues)
4. review other (non-disputed) sections and their coverage in the lead

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Those quotes could go in the special quote farm you've set up. Other notable quotes covering a similar topic can be added to the relevent parts. Thus we will build an overview of what all the most notable sources say rather than trade rival quotes. If someone else thinks the quote is not long enough to provide full context - they can add the rest in a different colour. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the entire chapter.

Can we agree to go after the collaboration and ethnic cleansing issues first (first the sections than their representation in the lede)? After all we're here to solve the dispute first and foremost, and we can discuss the non-controversial parts of the article afterwards (assuming that is at all necessary). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that is the best approach, as it puts us in to the thick of the most contentious discussions. We've tried that many times in the past, and it doesn't seem to get us very far. In particular, I think if we try to deal with collaboration and ethnic cleansing issues simultaneously, we'll fall into old habits very quickly. It also seems to me that there are some clear phases to all of this. Perhaps we could approach some of the more contentious issues that way. For example, we could focus on the issues of collaboration during the phrase from the fall of 1941 after M. fails in the attack against the Partisans, until he lands in Montenegro. Also, it would be very helpful, I think, if we used the quotations subpage for quotes, so as to ease future reference. The color coding idea for additions is also a good idea. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Going ito the thick of the dispute, its a good thing.

"Going into the thick of the most contentious issues" is exactly the point of dispute resolution . OMG Nuujin, are you serious? We just spent more than a week "discussing how to discuss", and now you want to start talking about meaningless detailes peripheral to this dispute. But you're right in one thing: the best way to avoid any conflict is to simply avoid the main issues in perpetuity, for years on end(!) - that way we're 100% sure we won't "fall into our old habbits". Indeed, maybe we can talk about Mihailović's grandma for the next year as well?

I am NOT here to discuss the entire article. I am here to solve the contentious issues. Once those are done, the article's other NON-DISPUTED sections can be edited and discussed however much is necessary and with a lot less problems - since there will be no more disputes in this article! This is a simple issue! Ironically, it seems we really are "falling into the old habits" - discussing and editing utter irrelevant nonsense in the hopes that the main issue will somehow solve itself in the process. Absurd.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you can't force everybody else to agree with you. Nobody else agrees that "collaboration in the lead" is the sole issue as you earlier declared above. Now we've got over the lead point, it doesn't look like everyone agrees that the single issues you see as the only or most important issues are that simple. Nujinns approach is perfectly sensible. This constant arguing is very disruptive. Lets just get on and do some work. Hopefully as we progress, things will fall naturally into place.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)