Talk:Pavle Đurišić

Proposal for assessment as A-Class

Proposal withdrawn:Redundant

G'day all, You will be pleased to note that Pavle Đurišić was recently assessed as A-Class by WikiProject:Military History. I propose that this article be promoted to A-Class in WikiProjects Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. I request the support of two uninvolved editors from each WikiProject, in accordance with the general A-class assessment criteria. Please discuss under the relevant WikiProject subsection. WikiProject Yugoslavia WikiProject Montenegro WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina I think that article meets all of the A-class criteria, and was promoted as such in the WP Military History, so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be promoted in the WP Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Wustenfuchs 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) WikiProject Serbia There are improvement opportunities presented in my review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić but I think that this article meets A-class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC) After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons: It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ). It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources It is not stable. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I withdraw this request. It is clear from the lack of interest that either the WikiProjects in question have limited interest in having a proper assessment process for A-Class (similar to that used by MILHIST), or lack the numbers of users to conduct the assessments. In one case the process (with only one WikiProject Serbia editor that showed a great deal of interest) was excruciating and largely unproductive. The article in question is now a Featured Article. I do not intend to repeat this experiment with the WikiProjects in question, and will stick to GA, MILHIST A-Class and FA in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

July uprising

Resolved: Information about Djurisic being one of the main commanders of the uprising added

The role of Đurišić in July uprising is still eluded. Milovan Đilas says that "DjuriSic had distinguished himself during the July uprising in the battle at Berane, where the worst fighting took place." link. If Đurišić's enemy (Milovan Đilas) admits that he had distinguished role in the worst fighting during uprising then his role was really significant and claims that Đurišić was "... a hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" are not mistake of biased book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) it's not 'eluded'. Please look on wiktionary for the meaning. I hope you mean that 'the article does not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising'. I would usually question the use of Djilas, given his first person involvement, but given he is unlikely to have written anything positive about the enemy unless it was incontrovertible, I think he is an acceptable source given he corroborates Kurapovna. Thank you, I will add him as a source and add the 'distinguished role' information. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes you are right. Đilas was indeed involved in the events. It is better to use Kurapovna and "hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" expression instead of "Captain Đurišić distinguished himself".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC) You have misunderstood me. I have used Djilas as his language is neutral ie he used the word 'distinguished' and if he says it, then he certainly must have done that. Kurapovna's language is unencyclopedic and potentially biased/POV, ie whose 'hero' was he, and why? Having 'distinguished' himself does not beg that question. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I don't agree that Djilas shold be used instead of Kurapovna if it is true that he captured Berane from Italians. But that issue is subject of another discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC) There is very important information which is presented in the work of Pavlowich, page 75 during 13. uprising in Montenegro: "The main commanders to emerge were Colonel Bajo Stanišić, ... Major Đorđe Lašić .... and Captain Pavle Đurišić." - Đurišić was one of three main commanders during uprising. This information is somehow overlooked and not presented to the readers of the article. It is understandable why Kurapovna referred to Djurisic as the hero of uprising. He was one of three main commanders. That is very important information which should be presented to the readers both in the lede of the article and in the main body of the article. Milovan Djilas and his mention of Djurisic's distinction during the battle of Berane is unclear and misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC) This has now been addressed in the lead and main body of the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator, who has not produced a WP:RS to support his contention

The text of the article says:

• In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. and
• A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.

Does it mean that Đurišić was subordinated to the communists during this uprising? If not maybe it should be clarified because the existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry for not responding to this earlier. It doesn't say that at all, please re-read it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-read it. It still says that:

1. In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists.
2. the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated

I am afraid that readers could be mislead that uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources say what they say. I haven't misrepresented them, or omitted anything from them that is relevant to this question. If you are aware of a WP:RS that makes it clear that Djurisic wasn't ever subordinated to the communists, or that clarifies this issue so the supposed implication is dealt with, please share. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: What impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?

Answer: That uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.

This article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source which says that he was one of the organizers of the uprising: "Histoire Du Peuple Serbe" - Dusan-T Batakovic, p.323 "il fut l'organisateur de l'insurrection contre les occupants Italiens en 1941

Based on above mentioned explanations I propose not to mislead the readers anymore and to clarify that Djurisic was not subordinated to the communists being only a participant in their uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You will need a source for that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. On the contrary. Without sources which support implied Djurisic's subordination to communists it is necessary to make above mentioned clarification in order to prevent misleading of the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no actually, not incorrect. The article does not imply Djurisic was subordinated to the communists, it says that the revolt was led by the communists and that he participated in the revolt. It implies nothing because the sources don't imply anything about that aspect. I don't know what his relationship was with the communist leadership of the uprising because it is not explained or detailed in any of the sources used for that aspect of the article. IF you have a source that explains what his relationship was with the communists, then you can add that information with the citation. If you don't it is WP:OR to either draw the conclusion that he wasn't in any way subordinated to the communists OR to draw the conclusion that he wasn't. I have not drawn either conclusion, I have only presented what the sources actually say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't imply anything about that aspect. The sources are completely clear about that aspect. Maybe you overlooked what Pavlowich wrote about Djurisic and his role in uprising:

• On page 75 there is a clear distinction between communists and other participants in the uprising: Nationalists Stanisic, Lasic and Djurisic were three main commanders of the insurgents who "had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans" "Having heard of Ustasha and German terror most people felt that it was safer to tolerate the Italians, such as they were" Local notables wanted to turn "on the Muslims and Albanians in the region" "who were acting against their Christian neighbours" and who executed hundreds of inhabitants interning 10,000—20,000 and were allowed to loot and burn freely. "Communists did their best to inject some organisation and to take over," but without success. Therefore they were embittered and "turned against peasant mentality, as only ideologically committed continued to fight." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a mishmash of out of context quotes from the page in question. Pavlowitch does not directly imply or explicitly state what Djurisic's relationship with the communists was (if any). As I have said above, IF you have a source that explains what his relationship was with the communists, then you can add that information with the citation. If you don't it is WP:OR or at the very least WP:SYNTH to either draw the conclusion that he wasn't in any way subordinated to the communists OR to draw the conclusion that he wasn't. I have not drawn either conclusion, I have only presented what the sources actually say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron cross controversy

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator, who has not produced a WP:RS in English (or a translation of one published in another language) to support his contention there is a controversy

I think that this article does not present real controversies about Pavle Đurišić like Iron cross controversy. There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. Those claims say that it is not only forgery, but also absurd taking in consideration that Germans actually imprisoned Đurišić in 1943 and held him in captivity until he escaped.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There are claims." Bring reliable sources to the table not just some hearsay. Also Wikipedia is absolutely disinterested in your original research. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it is "my original research"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "my original research"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be trolling... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually AntiD, it is original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. You have brought the claim here, so you need to back it up with a WP:RS. I am aware of the 'claim' but have never seen a WP:RS that supports it. Without a WP:RS, there is no controversy and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be original research only if no reliable, published sources exist to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And your comment was not constructive, because you were raising an issue without a WP:RS for it. I could go to any article and make a comment on a conspiracy theory about that subject and it would not be constructive. You have no source, you raised it, so your comment is WP:OR until you do, and with respect, I will be ignoring it until a source is provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You did not give me any time to present sources before you labeled my comment as original research. That was not polite nor constructive. Here are some sources which support information that there are claims that he actually did not receive Iron Cross:

Books:

• Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) - Historian Branislav Kovačević: Ако је Ђуришић стварно добио високо њемачко одликовање од фирера „Жељезни крст" тешко да би га усташе, вјерни Хитлерови послушници на ломачи спалиле
• то би било само то да је један назови новинар, чувши у каквој крчми надлагивања, а мећу њима и да је војвода Павле Ђуришић добио Гвоздени крст од Фирера, вест коју би у том случају могао да лансира један партизански - General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov

Press

• Ralević danas podvaljuje da su Nemci, odnosno Hitler, odlikovali Pavla Đurišića gvozdenim krstom. Tu laž, koja je objavljena u listu »Lovćen« 1944. godine, demantovao je i autor Đorđe Moskojević, bivši kapetan GESTAPO-a i agent NKVD-a, odnosno saradnik komunista. Cilj mu je bio, kako je sam izjavio, da naškodi četničkom pokretu, stoji u Šćekićevom reagovanju na izjave beranskih boraca. - Glas Javnosti, Interview with Dragoljub Šćekić who is President of the Board for building of the memorial to Pavle Djurisic
• Iz njegovih romansiranih biografija, koje obiluju apokrifnim izvorima, osporava se da je u jesen 1944. dobio Željezni krst – njemačko vojno odlikovanje. - Vladimir Jovanović "(Zlo)upotreba istorije", 19 August 2011, Monitoring- Number 1087
• KRST - FALSIFIKAT ZA pavla Đurišića protivnici rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića navode da je od Hitlera dobio gvozdeni krst. - To je istorijski falsifikat - kaže Dimitrijević. - Historian Bojan Dimitrijević, Večernje Novosti
• Kosta Nikolić: Podatak da je Pavle Đurišić dobio Hitlerov gvozdeni krst je falsifikat istorije - Historian Kosta Nikolić, Večernje Novosti
• Сведок: Пре рушења челници беранског СУБНОР-а обратили су се јавности саопштењем у коме кажу да се противе изградњи споменика "зликовцу, ратном злочинцу и издајнику Павлу Ђуришићу, о чијем лажном патриотизму најбоље говори крст којим је одликован од стране Хитлера". Да ли та тврдња одговара историјској истини? Милослав Самарџић: Не, наравно. То је само комунистичка пропаганда. - Interview of Miloslav Samardžić to Svedok magazine, published on Pogledi website.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, I don't read the lingo. When I see a translation into English by a disinterested sr-5 en Wikipedian translator and we can assess the reliability of the sources, or PRODUCER can read it and forms a view about the reliability of the sources, then we can discuss. Until then it's just a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably provide English translations and context for the quotations if you want to be taken seriously by non Serbo-Croatian speakers. You are on English Wikipedia after all. Unsurprisingly every source is a non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly, and unreliable Serbian work. How you can criticize Cohen and then bring a government gazette, a book by a collaborator, a bunch of yellow press and tabloid articles, and even a website dedicated solely to Chetnik apologism is beyond me. The first "book" is actually an official gazette of the FRY government which you were told before. The second is a biography on Milan Nedic written by Stanislav Krakov who was the head of propaganda for ZBOR and Nedic's "relative and close coworker." As for the rest, Serbian yellow press and tabloids that are not worth the paper their printed on. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I take it 'yellow press' is like 'tabloid journalism' here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with Stanislav Krakov as source before and I think that it's much worse than that. Another user had been making extensive use of Stanislav Krakov on Gligor Sokolovic and Antidiskriminator was insisting that he's RS even when I pointed out that he was editor-in-chief of the Belgrade-based collaborationist newspaper Obnova. However, arguments shouldn't have been needed at all as the details and "facts" from his works were so disturbing that I had to ask for admin intervention in order to remove such info. Btw PRODUCER since you're knowledgeable regarding Yugoslav/Croatian/Serbian sources would you evaluate Smilja Avramov as a source? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Krakov was not removed as source from Gligor Sokolović. On the contrary, he is used more than 100 times as reference in that article.

@ZjarriRrethues, your invitation is another example of Wikipedia:Canvassing connected with Vulnetari article. First you invited Peacemaker67 and now PRODUCER. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Asking someone to find sources about a subject is not that and asking someone to evaluate sources is not that either. However, your labeling of [1] Peacemaker's comment and tendetious edits like this one (based again on Smilja Avramov, Nenadovic etc.) isn't prudent.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree because I believe that at least some of the presented sources are enough reliable to dispute Iron Cross award.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Which ones are 'reliable enough' in your view? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several sources I presented which are written by historians. If there is a group of historians who dispute assertion of non-historian then I that assertion is certainly disputed and WP:NPOV policy should be respected. If de.wikipedia is correct Hajo Funke is not historian. I don't know about Alexander Rhotert but takig in consideration his political engagement and this interview I am not sure the source you used to additionally support Cohen's assertion is more reliable than many of the sources I presented here, especially because Rhotert and Funke actually used Cohen as source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Choose one and we can discuss. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this [2] is a list of Funke's academic research, fellowships and authorships when he gave evidence during a case regarding David Irving. If you think a book by Funke doesn't qualify as a WP:RS go ahead and take it to RSN. In the meantime I take the view that a professor of political science at the Free University of Berlin with his specialisations is highly appropriate as a source for this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your divisions aren't useful as RS criteria Antid. as we don't judge a work's reliability based on strict field distinctions especially when the field itself is broadly and loosely defined. In fact, more often than not, awarded historical works are written by linguists, archaeologists, political scientists, anthropologists and journalists.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I will prepare more detailed explanation about sources I presented, although you wrote: "No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis." This is not the first time you estimate reliability depending on the POV supported by source. Even if it is the same source (like Glas Javnosti case explained in section Berane II) You did not discuss Rhotert and Funke before inserting them into article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I made that comment after 13 days of nothing on this thread. Which was fair enough in my view. How long am I supposed to wait? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I replied to this comment you wrote within last hour. During last 13 days I did not submit any new source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, you quoted me as saying "No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis.". When I made that comment, this thread had been silent for 13 days. Or are you even disputing the passing of time? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Please state what source or sources you are relying on for your contention that there is some controversy about Djurisic's Iron Cross. PRODUCER has indicated that the first book you have listed is an official gazette of the FRY, and the second book is written by a former ZBOR propagandist. I believe neither would be acceptable as a WP:RS, and note that PRODUCER agrees in respect of the first book, and that both PRODUCER and ZjarriRrethues agree with respect to the second. So I assume that you are relying on one or more of the Serbian language press articles you have listed? Which one(s)? And exactly what do they say in English? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize because I forgot to translate the quotes from the presented sources:

Books:

• Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) - Historian Branislav Kovačević: Ако је Ђуришић стварно добио високо њемачко одликовање од фирера „Жељезни крст" тешко да би га усташе, вјерни Хитлерови послушници на ломачи спалиле (If Djurisic really received high German award from Fuhrer "Iron cross" it is hard to believe that ustashe, loyal to Hitler, would burn him alive.)
• то би било само то да је један назови новинар, чувши у каквој крчми надлагивања, а мећу њима и да је војвода Павле Ђуришић добио Гвоздени крст од Фирера, вест коју би у том случају могао да лансира један партизански агент и да «нагарави» ову новинарску незналицу, похитао да он ту «сензацију» први донесе. (one so called journalist heard of lies in some inn, among them that Pavle Djurisic received Iron Cross from Fuhrer, which is a news probably launched by one Partisan agent who wanted to mock with this ignorant journalist who hurried to be first to present such "sensation") - General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov

Press

• Ralević danas podvaljuje da su Nemci, odnosno Hitler, odlikovali Pavla Đurišića gvozdenim krstom. Tu laž, koja je objavljena u listu »Lovćen« 1944. godine, demantovao je i autor Đorđe Moskojević, bivši kapetan GESTAPO-a i agent NKVD-a, odnosno saradnik komunista. Cilj mu je bio, kako je sam izjavio, da naškodi četničkom pokretu, stoji u Šćekićevom reagovanju na izjave beranskih boraca. (Ralević today presents invention that Germans, i.e. Hitler, awarded Pavle Đurišić with Iron Cross. That lie, published in Lovćen 1944 was demanted by author Đorđe Moskojević, former GESTAPO and NKVD agent and communists' collaborator. His aim was, he says, to damage Chetnik movement, says Šćekić in his reply to claims of Berane veterans. - Glas Javnosti, Interview with Dragoljub Šćekić who is President of the Board for building of the memorial to Pavle Djurisic
• Iz njegovih romansiranih biografija, koje obiluju apokrifnim izvorima, osporava se da je u jesen 1944. dobio Željezni krst – njemačko vojno odlikovanje. (In his fictionalized biographies full with apokrif sources, it is disputed that he received Iron Cross in Autumn 1944, high German award.) - Vladimir Jovanović "(Zlo)upotreba istorije", 19 August 2011, Monitoring- Number 1087
• KRST - FALSIFIKAT ZA pavla Đurišića protivnici rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića navode da je od Hitlera dobio gvozdeni krst. - To je istorijski falsifikat - kaže Dimitrijević. (CROSS - FORGERY, The enemies of the rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović claim that Pavle Đurišić received Iron Cross from Fuhrer. - That is forgery of history. - Historian Bojan Dimitrijević, Večernje Novosti
• Kosta Nikolić: Podatak da je Pavle Đurišić dobio Hitlerov gvozdeni krst je falsifikat istorije (Information that Pavle Đurišić received Hitler's iron cross is forgery of history - Historian Kosta Nikolić, Večernje Novosti
• Сведок: Пре рушења челници беранског СУБНОР-а обратили су се јавности саопштењем у коме кажу да се противе изградњи споменика "зликовцу, ратном злочинцу и издајнику Павлу Ђуришићу, о чијем лажном патриотизму најбоље говори крст којим је одликован од стране Хитлера". Да ли та тврдња одговара историјској истини? Милослав Самарџић: Не, наравно. То је само комунистичка пропаганда. (....the iron cross Pavle Đurišić received from Hitler is the most important proof that his patriotism was false. Does this claim match historical truth? Milosav Samardžić: Of course not. That is only a communist propaganda. - Interview of Miloslav Samardžić to Svedok magazine, published on Pogledi website.

Maybe three sources written by historians could be used to support the proposed assertion: There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged.?

Publishing house Službeni list SRJ is different from the official gazzete of FR Yugoslavia --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator who has provided a WP:RS in English (or translated into English) for this contention

Within six weeks after uprising started on 13 July 1941 Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. Here is what article says happened then (end of August, beginning of September 1941):

• "A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.[7] As a result, the nationalists, including Đurišić who was popular in his own Vasojević clan of northern Montenegro, withdrew into the hinterland.[8]"

Tomasevich's work was used to support the the first sentence. Here is what Tomasevich wrote on pages 140-142:

• "In late October 1941, Colonel (later General) Draža Mihailović, the Chetnik leader in Serbia came to the conclusion that his principal enemies were the Partisans, not the Axis forces. From the beginning of 1942, this attitude was clearly reflected in Montenegro in relations between the Chetnik and separatist forces on the one hand, and Partisans on the other."

I think that the source is not properly interpreted. The text of the article could mislead the readers to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941, after Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. That is not correct. The source explicitly says that it happened at the beginning of 1942. It is important to be precise with the timeline here because events of this period are very important for understanding the full context of the future events. Đurišić withdrew into the hinterland not because of the split between communists and nationalists, but because of Italians who captured towns and communication routes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was when the split developed, it says that was when Mihailovic's attitude towards the Partisans was reflected in the relations between the various forces from the beginning of 1942. If you are suggesting some additional information could be added to clarify when the split occurred in Montenegro I accept that, and will add something shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to clarify when the spilt between partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Otherwise readers could be mislead to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify, I cannot understand your phraseology "developed until". Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It is necessary to clarify when the split between Partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Based on the current text of the article readers could be mislead that it happened in August-September 1941 although it happened at the beginning of 1942.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. There are two issues here, firstly the approach of the nationalists to the Italians in autumn 1941 (Tomasevich 1975) and their increased propensity to collaboration after Mihailovic attacked the Partisans at Uzice (on 2 November), and secondly that the anti-Partisan attitude of Mihailovic became 'clearly reflected in Montenegro' from the beginning of 1942 (Tomasevich 2001). So it is not clear exactly when the split began to occur (although some time in the autumn is likely), or when it was complete (although February/March 1942 is pretty likely given that was when the main Montenegrin Chetnik leaders made collaboration agreements with the Italians). Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede and two times in the main body of the article which describes the events, while information about Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Iron Cross award is highly notable, but it is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the main text. It also appears in the caption of an image. There was no information about when he was awarded the Star of Karageorge so I could put in the right section chronologically, so I put it in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the image. I forgot about it. That means that this is even more against WP:NPOV because mentioning Iron Cross in the caption of an image means that there is additionally a collage picture of two pages regarding the Iron Cross.

Karađorđe's star is also very notable award. It is against WP:NPOV to give so much more weight to information about award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to him by Yugoslav government.

There was information about when it was awarded. After Durmitor operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as their relative notability, the Order of Karageorge was awarded to quite a number of Chetnik commanders, but only one Chetnik commander I am aware of was awarded the Iron Cross, which makes it more exceptional (ie it is a unique award to a Chetnik, unlike the Star). I listed the Star first in the infobox because it is standard practice to include indigenous awards before foreign ones, and that is as it should be. Your NPOV accusations are wrongheaded. The policy says 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' My point is that it is mentioned once in the lead, once in the text, and given the exceptional nature of the award, the text is supported by the image. I would not be against including an image of the entitlement document for his Star if one was available, but I am not aware of one. The Iron Cross is fairly and proportionately represented when you take into account the uniqueness of the award. I see no bias in supporting the text with an image. And by the way, which Durmitor operation are we talking about and where is the source that says what date the award occurred? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was military operation conducted in August 1944.

Jozo Tomasevich mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after that Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded. On the other hand, Karađorđe's star was very rarely awarded only for exceptional merit. Even if it is undisputed that Đurišić ever received it (which is not) I still believe that it is against wp:npov to give so much more weight to information about Iron Cross award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to Đurišić by Yugoslav government.

I propose to remove lede sentence and image collage with its caption.

That way iron cross information would remain in the infobox and once in the text of the article, like information about Karađorđe's star. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to produce reliable sources which dispute that he received the Iron Cross. Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross. Many Chetnik commanders received the star and off the top of my head this included Mihailović, Jevđević, and Pećanac while on the other hand no other received the Iron Cross. Given the nature of the subject I believe the current version is neutral. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross." - Yes, it is this source written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: According to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that some sources that Maclean was aware of said that he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved:

1. There is nothing unique with this award which was given to almost anybody (more than five million totally) comparing to Karadjordje's star which was given to very limited number of people.
2. Iron Cross assertion is based on unreliable source.
3. Iron Cross assertion is disputed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, whatever chief. Please stop with the 'Resolved' and 'Unresolved' nonsense per PRODUCERs comments earlier. My point about resolving a few of these sections is that the 'label' you are using just reflects in what areas the article disagrees with your point of view. It is a personal view of yours, doesn't mean anything to the community and is completely pointless. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic is based on its context, essentially a combination of two facts, the fact that it is a German award and the fact it was awarded to a Chetnik. A completely unique set of facts as far as I am aware. The issue of the reliability of the source is under discussion at RSN. The assertion that the Iron Cross award is disputed is yours, and you have been asked for reliable sources that dispute it. That remains under discussion above. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the article violates NPOV in this respect is being discussed at the WP:NPOVN. There is a backlog, but I will wait for a consensus to develop there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The NPOVN request went nowhere. I stand by my assertions regarding balance between the two awards. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

Unresolved

According to RSN discussion] Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One review is not the sole factor to determining a source's reliability or its use. The claims in the article that are attributed to Cohen's book have citations to primary sources in the book and, as even that review indicates, "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was Cohen's book which supports very important (and disputed) assertion about Iron Cross. Not primary source like "note a" says. It is wrong to attribute Iron Cross assertion to primary source (which nobody saw) just because it is mentioned in unreliable Cohen's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is Ignoratio elenchi, the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issues in question. Instead of fallacies it is better to deal with issues. The issues in question are:

1. unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
2. referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in another section. I find your comment "You answer a question for a change" unnecessarily harsh.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is over. If you feel you can make a comment stating that it is disputed (above), refer to a section where you produced no WP:RS for the supposed dispute, then insist that YOUR question be answered, this clearly is going nowhere fast. There has to be mutual acceptance of the need for the discussion, and as far as I am concerned you have abjectly failed to bring anything to the table to dispute it. Maclean states that 'according to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans'. Maclean's book was published in 1957, Cohen's in 1999. Cohen references several things to that paragraph in his book, including Kostic, Parezanin and Stefanovic as well as the primary source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You overlooked the point. I will underline it: This section is not about Iron Cross dispute. This section is about two important issues of this article: using unreliable source ('Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War') and referencing the primary source to support assertion which is in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN due to its perceived slanting of facts to suit a conclusion (my summary). However, as PRODUCER has already pointed out, the review in question stated "no falsifications of history appear in its pages.". So unless you have a WP:RS that disputes the Iron Cross (ie indicates that there is a falsification in Cohen, specifically about the Iron Cross), there is no basis for removing that citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". It should not be used to support assertions in this article. All assertions based on this work, including microfilm assertion which is also based on Cohen's work, should be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what was said. If you are so sure that is what was meant, then feel free to take this specific issue back to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what you said. I quoted you. You and PRODUCER insisted on RS many times on this talkpage, just search word reliable and look for yourself. Now, when the source you used is found unreliable you insist on using it, although you refused to use many other sources just because you claimed they are not reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Other editors do not agree the book is unreliable so do not reinsert your frivolous tags. Do not claim it's unreliable when the sole review brought up at RSN even states "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." Do not claim it's disputed without bringing reliable sources of your own. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you overlooked that Peacemaker67 admited: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". Until RS is found the references based on Cohen should be appropriately tagged. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit anything, I summarised what was said at WP:RSN. Your English comprehension needs some work, you just read into my comments what you want to see. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. You did not admit, you summarized: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and whilst I believe that was Fifelfoo's conclusion, I now have good reason to question the review that was produced. As this came up while I was working on the Ante Pavelic article (as I'm sure you will recall), I searched for more information on two of the dubious sources used in that article, published by the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies. In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is also used as a source in this article as well as the Pavelic one). And he supports Cohen and his book. I have linked the blog post here [3]. On the basis of Hoare's recommendation, I have therefore re-considered my position and will treat Cohen as a WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is a reliable source for the determination of the reliability of sources? Don't make me laugh. I've de-tagged Cohen in the biblio, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast Peacemaker67. You should present Atilla's website on RSN and gain consensus there before you proclaim victory of your POV.

1. Your rationale and "re-considering of your position" is wrong and based on fact picking. There are other reviews of Cohen's book which are not so afirmative, like this review.
2. Even Atilla admits that Cohen was not a professional historian or academicblog link.
3. Atilla has been reported for his false statements and fake quotes published on his personal website. Here is what this complaint says about Atila's postings: "these posting contain false statements, fake quotes, and personalized smears. And Hoare not only impugns my academic research; he impugns my moral character as well. Taken as a whole, Hoare’s methods violate basic norms of academic conduct." - signed by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History

Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious because you refuse to accept independent input of RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, there are three editors here disputing your inserting those tags vs your lone self being oh-so-wiki-insistent. See WP:OAS; this is an FA and you're not to tag it lightly; not at all in the face of a consensus against doing so, here on talk.. I've {{resolved}} this thread. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am not alone. There is important independent input (don't forget that two editors who support Cohen are very much involved) at RSN which says that Cohen is not RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is more toward amateurism of the book and book author.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another RSN about Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War confirmed the first one.
    1. Fifelfoo: I would say that it is unreliable
    2. Nick-D: I agree with Fifelfoo's comments: this book does not appear to be considered reliable by experts in this field, and so it should not be used as a reference for anything other than its author's opinion and/or the book's own contents..it seems hard to believe that there aren't better sources for the facts of these events which could be used instead.
    3. Churn and change: Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, no. The consensus of User:Nick-D and User:Churn and change is per Churn and change above with the proviso that Nick-D put on his view. Fifelfoo has been asked to go back and respond to Churn and change but has yet to do so. The current RSN issue is not finalised, as there is not "consensus of several editors". The first one didn't have the consensus of several editors (in fact only one editor gave a view), and is, as far as guidance is concerned, of very limited value, as it is now clear User:Churn and change strongly disagrees with Fifelfoo's view on policy grounds. Your post is premature. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All three uninvolved editors at RSN agreed about the contents of the book or its correctness. Yes, Churn and change wrote: "I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness" ... but "using general guidelines"..." Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality."

You refused to accept the first RSN using excuse that it was based on one comment. The second RSN is not based on one comment. It is based on the consensus of several uninvolved editors and should be respected.

Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your excuse not to respect the first RSN because "in fact only one editor gave a view" as tendentious editing. When you tagged one article and wrote this comment you did not mind it being based on the view of only one editor only two hours after this one single comment was left at RSN. Just because you (mistakenly?) thought it supports your POV. But when RSN does not support your POV for 20 days you claim that it is premature to conclude anything. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I note for the record that I apologised to Fifelfoo for misrepresenting his opinion and withdrew. I also note that this was the first time I had used RSN, and I had not noticed the "consensus of several editors" guidance at the top of the page. I am obviously now aware of that aspect. I do not care one iota whether you AGF with me or not, or whether "someone" (meaning you) may or may not consider something I do as tendentious, so please stop using that terminology with me over and over again. It appears that you do not know what the word means in practice, as you use it far too liberally in inappropriate contexts. I further note that when there was a weak consensus at RSN (which is clear from the comments of Churn and change and Nick-D), you misrepresented the consensus by misquoting Nick-D (for which you apologised), and submitted a RfC to confirm that there really was a consensus. Your behaviour here and on other article talkpages as well as on RSN indicates that you want to get rid of Cohen from WP because his work undermines your point of view on WWII Serb history, and have demonstrated that you are willing to misrepresent other editors and that you are willing to forumshop to achieve your aim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A song

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There is a very popular Chetnik song "Đurišiću mlad majore" [Djurisic, young major] written during the war and dedicated to Djurisic. Maybe it would be a good idea to add this information to the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

again, have never heard of it, and have not been able to locate a WP:RS in English for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ђуришићу млад мајоре - There are many sources that could be used as reference for song about Durisic. This song is very popular and interpreted by numerous performers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

and which of these would you suggest is a WP:RS? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think there is a need to support this assertion about this very popular song with the source of exceptional reliability? I don't think so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, verifiability, not truth. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Any of the presented sources can be used to support song assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You say it is/was popular. What do the WP:RS say? YouTube vids are just ridiculous at this class of article. So far as I am concerned, you need a WP:RS for its existence and popularity if it is to be included. There is nothing I can find in en, so you need to find something in sr and translate it. Don't link a pile of Google results. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, even I can work out that the first two hits are Radomir J. Ostojic (a Montenegrin Chetnik) and Ratko Parezanin (Ljotic's secretary) who was Ljotic's liaison officer with Djurisic when he commanded the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same Parežanin who you used to support disputed iron cross assertion based on unreliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What dispute? Again, what WP:RS do you have that disputes the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, giving undue weight to the controversial Iron Cross award is very big problem with this article which violates WP:NPOV. But Iron Cross controversy is subject of the discussion in another section.

This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić.

You used unreliable source to support Iron Cross award giving it undue weight and violating WP:NPOV. When the source you used was "considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN" you tried to defend your POV supporting it with work of Parežanin. Now you refuse to add information about the notable song dedicated to Đurišić also based on the same Parežanin. Someone who doesn't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious and disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are three secondary sources for the Iron Cross, two of Cohen, and one of Maclean. I have repeated (and I believe PRODUCER has too) that even the pretty negative review of Cohen 1996 that Fifelfoo produced states that "No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs". That means that the contents haven't been falsified but the conclusions he draws in the book are dubious. The Iron Cross is not a conclusion drawn by Cohen, it is a fact he has presented. On that basis, I see no reason why he cannot be used for individual facts, but I would be very careful only to use his conclusions if they were supported by reliable sources. Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre. Your accusation of undue weight and violating NPOV is just wrongheaded and reveals your own consistent POV-pushing. As far as the song is concerned, have yet to see a WP:RS for it. When you produce one, we can discuss.

If there is anything bizarre it is your insisting on sources which you and PRODUCER consider RS for not such exceptional claims like song, but using unreliable source for very important assertions like extensively used and pictured Iron Cross assertion just because someone on RSN said that no falsification of history appear in its pages.

This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić. If you want to discuss using ureliable sources in this article please use appropriate section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

you are the one conflating one discussion with another. I've asked for a WP:RS for the 'notable' song. Haven't seen one yet though. Until I do I plan to ignore this string. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. You wrote "Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre." in the comment within this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides above mentioned list of sources which can easily be found trough Google Books search:

• „ђуришићу млад мајоре, Команданте Црне Горе, Црне Горе и Санџака, Где пропаде петокрака, - Faze događaja - notorne istine: ("urbi et orbi"), Radomir J. Ostojić - 1985
• «Ђуришићу, млад мајоре, Команданте Црне Горе - Moja misija u Crnoj Gori, Ratko Parežanin, 1974
• «Ђуришићу, млад мајоре, Команданте Црне Горе - Zapisi iz dobrovoljacke borbe, 1954
• "ђуришићу млад мајоре Raskol, Mile Kordić, 1996
• Онда добровољци и четници заједно запеваше песму: Ђуришићу, млад мајоре, команданте Црне Горе, Црне Горе и Санџака - Ratne i druge priče, Momčilo Isailović, 2000

there is additional source for this song dedicated to Djurisic:

• "djurisicu mlad majore" Diverse forces in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945; Bosko S. Vukcevich - 1990--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources establish notability, not to mention that most are flagrantly POV i.e. Ratko Perezanin was a collaborationist and high-ranking member of ZBOR, Radomir Ostojic was a collaborationist and chetnik, while Mile Kordic served as editor of Politika ekspres during the Milosevic era of the newspaper.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like Dhimitër Frëngu, a member of Skandebeg's forces, whose work (of disputed autorship) is used as source in article about Siege of Krujë (1466–1467)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about that article, we are talking about this one. It needs WP:RS that establish notability for this information. It is not mentioned once in scholarly texts in English to my knowledge. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. It is not necessary to establish notability for this information supported by scholarly texts in English. If that would be necessary then this version of article would not be promoted to FA because it has seven web sources on Serbo-Croatian language. None of them scholarly text in English and all of them used in the article to support the text of the last section which explains why it is wrong to erect a memorial to Djurisic because he was a "war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of many colleagues of the veterans association and 7,000 Muslims".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we concentrate on one topic per string? You created this enormous list of your "issues" with their own sections, so it is reasonable to ask that you restrict the discussion in each one to the matter at hand. Again, what is the WP:RS you are relying on for the proposed inclusion of this material in the article? Clearly not Parezanin, Ostojic or Kordic, per ZjarriRrethues' comments above. Your point about Google Books searches above is lost on me. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I canot read or speak any language other than English with sufficient proficiency to translate. So if you want to convince me you'll need to translate the information about the source and the actual material you consider supports your contention. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Moved from Talk:Pavle Đurišić § WikiProject Serbia

 – Moved to present list of reasons why User:Antidiskriminator considers this article does not meet A-class criteria. Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:

1. It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
2. It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
3. It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because
   1. there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
   2. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
4. It is not stable.
5. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN

I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a featured article, so it'll take much more than attributions of problems to delist it. That being said, all the issues you raised have been checked in a much more thorough review on FAN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't attribute motives to me. The purpose of this section is not delisting. Please read above explanation which says: "Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.". You can also read my above comment "The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The supposedly unreliable source (Cohen) also has this review from Dr Marko Attila Hoare, formerly of the history department of Cambridge University. [4], as well as others available on Taylor & Francis (but not free unfortunately. Clearly there are serious questions about the single review produced by User:Fifelfoo at RSN given that his comments were unsupported by other RSN editors, and therefore did not even meet the minimum requirement for RSN of consensus of several editors. User:Antidiskriminator's persistent use of the comments of User:Fifelfoo in the face of contradictory views is just a simple case of WP:HEAR, and discloses a very particular POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is no longer a talkpage, it is a list of demands where Anti even keeps a tally and continuously pushes the same already discussed and disproven nonsense. Now he has even rehashed his old review in an attempt to delist the article since his demands weren't met. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Likewise. Section renamed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A-class criteria

Unresolved

 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator who has not provided a WP:RS in English (or translated into English) for the remaining "unresolved" contention regarding the British

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

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

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

you constantly refer to something being "very important" or "most important" or even "much more important". I'm afraid that this is in your mind (or POV) unless you have a source that says it is "very, most, much more" important. Where exactly does Tomasevich say that these issues were of "exceptional" importance or "very important" as far as Djurisic's motivations were concerned? As far as the last point is concerned, you need a page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 134.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is total misrepresentation of the source. I have the page open on my desk, and p. 134 says nothing about Djurisic, and the only mention of Montenegro is the following about halfway down the page "On July 13 fighting broke out in Montenegro,...". At the bottom of the page, the discussion of what the involvement of nationalists was in the uprising is about Serbia, not Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

link to the page number 134 --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ah, Ramet. Why didn't you say, I assumed Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I did say " this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan""--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And where does Tomasevich explain this plan? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 222. Tomasevich explains plans for 'Greater Serbian Federation' (consisting of Serbia, Montenegro, Sandžak and possibly Eastern Bosnia) among other things to explain presence of the Serbian Volunteer Corps in Sandžak and why Djurisic "owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić". You already used this page and particular paragraph as source in the article. You probably overlooked it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I - Declaration of Independence of Montenegro

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

According to Antidiskriminator, supposedly "There is very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then "grievances against the Italians"." Where on p. 140 of Tomasevich 2001 does it mention Djurisic? It doesn't mention him at all, actually. It explicitly says that "The Italians had good reason to be concerned about dissatisfaction among the people." and "The following day, July 13, the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist but most strongly nationalist, joined in." The article says "In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organize themselves into the Chetniks, and former Yugoslav Army officers, some of whom had recently been released from prisoner-of-war camps. The rebels seized control of small towns and villages in the early phase of the uprising". The article is entirely consistent with the source, there is no mention of the declaration being "very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then (sic) "grievances against the Italians"." The only use of the term "important" by Tomasevich on that page is to state (referring to Montenegro) that "Most importantly, it had a strong Communist Party organisation." Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You again overlooked something important. You wrote almost whole paragraphs about grievances and supported it with the pages which does not mention Djurisic at all (p 138-140). Including page 140. You used page 140 two times in the article's references. Page 140 does not have to mention Djurisic if it is used to support the context of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC) you have completed failed to show that this information is much more important than the grievances, or very important, or even important. Tomasevich does not say that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Incorrect. "Fact picking" is "often the main tool of a coatrack article". Jozo Tomasevich considered this event was important. He even described it in his work, right before description of the uprising. He wrote a whole paragraph about: - The declaration of independence of Montenegro issued on 12 July which "annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia". Then he continued with: "The following day, July 13, the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist but most strongly nationalist, joined in." Without information about this event the context of uprising and involvement of nationalists (including Đurišić) would not be complete.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I'll ignore the wikilawyering rot about WP:COATRACK, which is really insulting given the amount of time and effort put into this article. Just because it doesn't reflect how you want the man portrayed doesn't mean it's a coatrack. As far as this is concerned, I went back to the sources and have added in some material from Pavlowitch which indicates that the revolt was triggered by the proclamation. As far as I am concerned the matter is resolved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved Jozo Tomasevich in his work "Četnici u drugom svjetskom ratu 1941-1945" on page number 312 emphasizes and confirms important role of Pavle Djurisic in the military arrangements of the plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. "Zbog Hitlerovog protivljenja taj plan nikad nije bio prihvaćen, ali su s obzirom na Crnu Goru učinjeni neki vojni aranžmani između generala Felbera i generala Nedića. U tim je aranžmanima važnu ulogu igrao major Pavle Đurišić..." (translation: Because Hitler opposed this plan it was never accepted, but in case of Montenegro some military arangements between general Felber and general Nedić have been made. In those arrangements important role had major Pavle Đurišić.)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Look chief, your going to have to render the book titles in English (a reasonable request given this is English WP). I suppose ratu is war, and Cetnici is Chetniks, but the rest might as well be in Greek to me. Does the Serbo-Croat version of the book render the same information on the same page as the English one? I don't know, but please use English? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Please don't call me chief.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, that is Serbo-Croatian version of "Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9." page 349. You probably overlooked that Djurisic "played an important role" in this arrangements .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Ramet. Antidiskriminator, you have misrepresented Ramet in respect of page 134 of The Three Yugoslavias. Above you stated that "Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro Both Ramet and Tomasevich explain this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan". That was a plan to establish some kind of union state between Serbia and Montenegro. That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis.". What you have done there is blatant WP:SYNTH. There are two paragraphs on page 134 under the heading "The Neubacher Plan". The first paragraph relates to the plan itself, and ends by saying that "Neubacher's proposals died on Hitler's desk". The following paragraph talks about the active role that Neubacher continued to play in both Zagreb and Belgrade, including fighting against the persecution of Serbs in the NDH and the release of Djurisic. Nowhere on that page does Ramet link Neubacher's plan with the release of Djurisic. When you recognise that Ramet does not in fact support your contention that "That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis", then I will look at the other references you have indicated support your contention. I see no reason why I should spend time checking every use you make of sources, find that in several cases they do not in fact support your contentions, then continue to engage with you about one of your myriad issues with this article when you regularly resort to WP:SYNTH to try to get your "important/major/most important issues" incorporated into this article. This behaviour is in bad faith, disruptive and wasteful of my time and energy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Incorrect. Read again what I wrote and sources I pointed to. You probably again overlooked that JT in his "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9." page 349 emphasized that Djurisic "played an important role" in this arrangements .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I didn't overlook it. I refuse to even re-read it until you accept that your use of Ramet to support your assertion is WP:SYNTH. That's it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) No. There is no misinterpretation. My assertion that "this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan"" is supported by the source written by Ramet, p.134. Yes, there is one sentence of my comment that is not directly supported by the sources I presented. That Đurišić was released from prison because of this plan. Tomašević and everything that happened after his release indirectly support that assertion. Your comment is another fallacy. The point was not if Đurišić was released because of this plan. The point was that: this plan existed, in case of Montenegro some military arangements have been made and in those arrangements important role had major Pavle Đurišić. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC) No, actually, you are now changing your point about what Ramet supports. You clearly attempted to assert that "That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison...". Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC) No. My point was not Djurisic's release. Your reply is another straw man fallacy which are so frequent in your comments that it could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern. My point is clearly presented in section "Not comprehensive and well-researched" where I emphasized that "this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects three major facts which are important for placing the subject in context:...3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro" - The article neglects this plan. It is not even mentioned in the article although in case of Montenegro some military arangements have been made and in those arrangements important role had major Pavle Đurišić. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Whatever your point is, either edit the article to rectify what you consider to be a deficiency, or cease using this talk page as a forum for your views on Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessary harsh and contains fallacy and unjustified accusations. It could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern. I again politely ask you: Please don't continue with this kind of behavior. Don't attribute views to me. I did not present my views on Djurisic. On the contrary. I carefully explained what is written in the same sources already extensively used in this article. It is Jozo Tomasevich's view that Djurisic had important role in military arrangements of the plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC) then edit the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC) I did (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

— Jozo Tomasevich

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

I hate to break it to you but him allowing his troops to be disarmed without a fight is actually further indicative of collaboration, rather than the opposite. This is the customary reply given to enemy troops asking you to "lay down your weapons" :). But if they're not your enemy.. if you're working for them.. -- Director (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They were captured too. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Per my response to the same discussion on Case Black, why don't you draft a couple of sentences and discuss them here? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Case Black discussion is connected only to fourth major fact neglected by this article. I am only reviewing this article and don't have intention to edit it but to help improving it during the review.

Until this matter is properly covered this article should be properly tagged. Would it be better to use Template:Coverage or Template:Incomplete? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an entirely minor point. And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration. Instead of tagging the article, put forward a proposal as to how you would wish this covered, but please be careful not to insinuate this is in any way an act of "resistance" (since I assume that's what you're aiming at). -- Director (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Director. Either tag would be completely inappropriate. It would be WP:UNDUE to tag this article on the basis of such a point of little overall weight or importance. This article has been recently reviewed and is FA. Your little review to make sure it meets your personal standards means little to anyone other than yourself. If you are not interested in editing or improving the article so it addresses your concerns, drop the WP:STICK. Your behaviour on this talk page is disruptive and tendentious. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Director."And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration."

Incorrect. He was not only forced to surrender his weapons but also captured and transported to prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course he was "forced", I'm sure he didn't exactly like it much. The point is he did so peacefully and none of this is indicative of resistance activity (you'll note the Partisans, who were Axis enemy combatants, did not surrender their arms). The man won the Iron Cross for heaven's sake.. -- Director (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The man was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? -- Director (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, there's no question that the German offensives Weiss and Schwartz were all because of the possibility of an Allied landing in the Balkans. All German activities at that time were all motivated by the necessity to secure the area. However: the point is that he allowed his troops to be peacefully disarmed - that is indicative of collaboration. If he was imprisoned for the time being he was released afterwards and so distinguished himself in service of the Germans they decorated him. You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero" for being arrested and thrown in prison by his masters - for a brief while. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please stop attributing motives to me.

Djurisic escaped from prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I commented on content, on your position, not on you yourself. Please keep your wikilawyering to yourself. -- Director (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero"" - You attributed motive to me. Please don't do that. Please respect WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I do sincerely apologize. Please provide a source for Đurišić's escape and the whole story (with page numbers). And please try not to use some Serbian society and/or a Chetnik voivoda for a source. -- Director (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is written in the article: "He escaped three months later". Do you think that article is not properly sourced?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Which article? Either way, what I said stands: the point is that he allowed his troops to be peacefully disarmed - that is indicative of collaboration. Whether he was imprisoned or not, he soon re-instated himself in the service of the Germans. Being imprisoned is not in itself an act of resistance. -- Director (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This article.

No your point does not stand. He was not only disarmed. He was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about "he was disarmed", yes I'm sure someone took away his pistol when he was arrested :). When I say "disarmed", I refer to his troops, who were disarmed by the Germans without any kind of struggle. That alone suggests collaboration, not resistance.. seeing as how there wasn't any "resistance". You shoot at the enemy, you don't give them your weapons if they ask you. I'm still waiting to see a source for his (quote) "capture" and daring escape.

You appear to think that "because of the plans for Western Allied landing" refers to his plans for a Western Allied landing? :D Please read the sources, Antidiskriminator, so you might reduce the number of misunderstood/misrepresented sources you're posting here on a daily basis. It will also save the time of those who then must explain the source. What is meant by that is that the Germans were in general acting to secure the Balkans region due to the possibility of an Allied landing. They had orders to disarm all the Chetniks because of the possibility, but generally didn't. They did disarm the troops of poor hapless Đurišić, though (probably because he was their own man, and not the Italians').

That's about as much effort I'm willing to spend explaining sources here. 1) He was imprisoned - if sourced, that alone is not indicative of collaboration, but it isn't an act of "resistance" either. 2) His troops were disarmed without resistance - that suggests close collaboration with the enemy. For comparison, please note that it would be impossible to peacefully disarm a Partisan unit. My point stands. Nothing here is indicative of his "resistance", if anything it represents further evidence of his collaboration with the enemy.

Most importantly: from now on whenever you bring up an issue you please bring forth your suggestion for specific changes to the article. This is not a forum where one chats about various abstract subjects with other people. Specific changes to the article at each objection, please. What you're doing here now is textbook disruption - and it must stop. -- Director (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

About Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so lots of Serbs didn't like what he had to say? Who cares? It's irrelevant here on WP.

Utter rubbish. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked by Hoare, who says he saw the manuscript and made some comments on it. Absolute unmitigated Serbian POV rot. Wake up to yourself. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• My friend, I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter. That makes me free to see and read the Serbian point of views. Needles to say that we are all obliged to respect the sacred Wikipedia rule: Neutrality. I hate to say so, but I see in your comment a strong bias. I found more negative reviews of the Cohen's book in another book reviews. It's strange to me that a dermatologist (I was informed before he was a dentist) wrote a book of such kind. Here I can accept only that John P. Maher is John P. Maher. Serb or not, does it matter?--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

An amazon review? Brb making a 5 star review. The "CCCC" is the cherry on top to this "Serbian POV rot" as Peacemaker put it. [5] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No bias. I just have a sense that an editor seeking to remove a book praised by a Cambridge don as 'very good', because it doesn't align with their point of view, is probably not interested in WP policy but probably has a POV to push. I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either. Living in Australia makes it a bit hard to vote in Croatian elections, and not having any voting rights there doesn't help. Personally, I'd like to vote in the Wiggywack council elections, but they won't let me either. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I'm not Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either, and I have to say I recall Cohen was rejected on good grounds as an unreliable source in some previous discussion or other... negative peer reviews were cited. I honestly can't remember when it was, though. -- Director (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Director, the matter was taken back to RSN by User:Juraj Budak (I had taken it there a few weeks prior and only one editor provided a view), and a consensus is still (hopefully) forming. PRODUCER and I have been belting this thing around for a while. I have found it hard to accept that Cohen appears in the bibliography of Ramet's 3Y & Hoare's G&R but it's supposedly unreliable. Mostly it is to do with Djurisic's Iron Cross, but in general Cohen's pretty unpopular with some of our fellow editors. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that he was rejected once on a talkpage, ages ago. I can't even remember where. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Operation Halyard one editor emphasized: This book is anti-Serbian and not scientific but "the easy" and sensationalist book. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chetniks/Archive_4#Politically_Motivated_Sources also contains discussion about reliability of Cohen's work. And this section too. A comment in this section and this page too. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, editors' opinions. That is why it was brought to RSN by me, and I expect that is why Juraj did it. Just take a breath. I've asked for a formal close on the RSN discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears my request for a formal close was unsuccessful. However, I consider the consensus was that explained by Churn and change, supported by Nick-D (with reservations). I intend to continue using Cohen on the basis of Churn and change's stipulations, ie that facts are cited, opinions are attributed in-text. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Berane II

Unresolved

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

• "le capitaine Pavlé Djurisic prit la ville de Berané et s'empara du chef de régiment avec toutes ses troupes" (translation: Captain Pavle Djurisic took the town of Berane and seized the regimental commander with all his troops) - Trahison Au Sommet Dans Les Maquis Yougoslaves, Dragan Sotirović, 1972
• "o come il capitano Pavle DjuriSic, che dopo aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane nel luglio 1941 si era assicurato una zona d'influenza nel Montenegro centro-orientale" (translation:or as the captain Pavle Djurisic, who after successfully led the attack on the garrison of Berane in July 1941 had secured an area of influence in central and eastern Montenegro) - L'occupazione italiana della Iugoslavia, 1941-1943; Francesco Caccamo, 2008
• "In the July uprising of 1941, Pavle Djurishich organized a blockade of Berane against the Italian occupier, during which he distinguished himself. After intense fighting, the Italians surrendered. Thus Berane was liberated by Vasojevici patriots." - Diverse forces in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945; Bosko S. Vukcevich - 1990--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know it is entirely possible. July 1941 was well before the start of Chetnik collaboration. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• а 17 јула под командом капетана Павла Ђуришића, отпочео је страховити напад на италијански гарнизон у Беранама. (translation: under command of Pavle Djurisic on 17 July began strong attack on Italian garrison in Berane) - Glasnik Srpskog istorijsko-kulturnog društva "Njegoš"., Volumes 5-8, Srpsko istorijsko-kulturno društvo "Njegoš" u Americi - 1960--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes alright, you've made your point. He'd have to be a pretty extreme collaborator to have begun cooperation with the Axis as early as July 1941. It took even Pećanac until mid August (though please don't quote the magazine of the "Serbian Historical-Cultural society Njegoš in America" anymore, lol). -- Director (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only point he's made is his incredible willingness to continue his POV pushing in an endless cycle of dumping ridiculous and dubious sources on this talkpage, this time under the guise of "Berane II". None of the sources are even remotely scholarly. The Dragan M. Sotirović source, a Chetnik commander, and the Serbian Historical-Cultural Society Njegoš source in particular exemplify this absurd length of POV pushing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be so kind to follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks and "Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes your sources are something of a riot for their bias, but I'm reasonably certain Đurišić did, in fact, take Berane early in the war - if I recall correctly with Partisan help. Before he turned traitor completely, that is. -- Director (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss the Francesco Caccamo citation though, what is the reliability of this book? Anyone do Italian? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little rusty, but yeah, I can read the thing. Yes, Đurišić distinguished himself in the battle at Berane. Here's Milovan Đilas who, while criticizing Đurišić, makes a note of his exploits at Berane [6]. Not the most neutral of sources as such, but I think we can be certain he would not exaggerate the exploits of the Chetniks. The July 13 uprising was a joint undertaking by both nationalists and Partisans in Montenegro, and Đilas himself (a Partisan commander) was an important actor. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Djilas is already in the article as a source for Djurisic 'distinguishing himself' at Berane. But does it say he "captured Berane during the uprising"? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Caccamo above does say he "successfully led an attack" on Berane ("aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane"). I think we can assume he took it and distinguished himself in so doing. -- Director (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's what it says, I'll stick to what it says. We quickly get on a slippery slope on this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, the sense of the Caccamo and Monzali quote (thanks Director) which appears to be "above board" has been incorporated into the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The point was that he captured Berane from Italians. That is very important fact that should be clearly presented to the readers, both in the lead section and the body of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you need a WP:RS for it, not the scribbling of a former Chetnik. It appears the consensus is that you don't have one at present. Until you do... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? After DIREKTOR wrote: "Caccamo above does say he "successfully led an attack" on Berane ("aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane"). I think we can assume he took it and distinguished himself in so doing." you are the only one who insists on more sources that Djurisic captured Berane. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of consensus, its a matter of WP:V. Any challenged claim must be supported by a reliable source that directly supports it, that's one of the most basic pillars of Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, Peacemaker is right. To claim that he "captured" Berane is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If he chooses to challenge that claim no amount of opposition can have us include it. Caccano says Đurišić "successfully led the attack on the garrison of Berane in July 1941 and secured an area of influence in central and eastern Montenegro", he doesn't say specifically that he captured the town. Such a phrasing does imply two things the author does not: 1) that Berane was in fact captured, and 2) that Đurišić is responsible for the victory. There's no reason not to use the exact wording of the source. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be WP:OR only if "no reliable, published sources exist" for this assertion. There are many sources which support this assertion. None which denies it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There isn't a reliable published source that says "Đurišić captured Berane". We've not seen one. Provode it, please, or cease making unsourced claims. -- Director (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Ex-Chetniks(!), and some nonsense "Serbian Society in America", are not reliable sources. -- Director (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Er no. I don't base anything on POV, always on reliability. The websites used for the memorial section were challenged during GA (I think), and passed. Please get your facts straight. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. This page contains GA review. Nobody challenged websites used for memorial section. Even if they were challenged and passed that only confirms my point. Glas Javnosti passed as reliable source. It is still listed among the sources for this article. Why do you still claim there are no reliable sources for assertion that Pavle Đurišić captured Berane?
• You are main contributor of Kosta Pećanac article which contains many important assertions referenced with Glas Javnosti web site. Let me remind you that you nominated this article for GA. But when I presented the same website containing interview with historian who confirms the assertion of many other sources: that Pavle Đurišić captured Berane ("Pavle Đurišić bio oslobodilac Berana" - transl.: Pavle Đurišić liberated Berane) you claim that the source is not reliable. If you extensively use one source but reject it as unreliable only in cases it does not support you POV then your estimation about the reliability of the source depends on the POV it supports. Therefore I will try to get opinion of uninvolved editors about this issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." For matters such as a memorial controversy Glas Javnosti can be used while for other things such as the great claim that he "liberated" Berane it is unacceptable. The same goes for the Pecanac article. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Glas Javnosti was used to explain how one editor estimate a weight of the claim. I am concerned that it depends on its POV because:

• when it comes to claims with criticism of Đurišić - lightweight sources (referring to Đurišić as "war criminal") are completely acceptable.
• but when it comes to "good" things, such as struggle against Axis and capture of Berane - extraordinary sources are requested and opinion of historian with PhD in History is rejected as source just because it is published in Glas Javnosti. The same Glas Javnosti is extensively used by the same editor in article about Kosta Pećanac. In first two sections and half of the third section of that article Glas Javnosti is the only source covering the first 33 years of Pecanac's life (full of important assertions about his early life, struggle for Macedonia and Balkan Wars). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement that he is a "war criminal" is an opinion that is clearly attributed to SUBNOR. It regards the memorial controversy and appears no where else in the article. You on the other hand wish to present GJ as a reliable source for his WWII activity sections for which it simply isn't. "Important assertions"... no, simply no. The important assertions regard his rise to prominence in WWI and his WWII activity which are reliably sourced (before that he was a nobody). Again lightweight sources were used for lightweight claims. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• You did not explain the difference in this editor's evaluation of reliability of GJ in comparation with Kosta Pećanac article. The same editor who refused GJ as unreliable for Djurisic article used GJ to support important assertions in Pećanac's 'war in Macedonia' and 'Balkan war' "activity sections".
• Thank you for your very interesting explanation about use of lightweight sources in this article. When important assertions are presented within controversy section and carefully attributed they became lightweight assertions which can be supported with lightweight sources (like websites and GJ). Your comment might help resolving many non-resolved issues on this talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

OK. I will.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When? You haven't even confirmed which source you are saying is reliable. All of them? Including the former Chetnik and the "Serbian Society in America"? Or do you accept that they cannot be considered reliable? In which case which source is it that you are using to support your assertion that Djurisic captured Berane? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of GJ was actually looked at in the ACR, not the GAN. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case here is another confirmation of GJ: Pavle Đurišić je uspešno komandovao ustanicima za oslobođenje Berana - Pavle Đurišić successfully commanded rebels who captured Berane.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

in English, and what is it, an op-ed, editorial or what? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I already wrote English translation (Pavle Đurišić successfully commanded rebels who captured Berane.).

This text is also written by journalist of GJ. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Karchmar, Lucien (1987), Draz̆a Mihailović and the rise of the C̆etnik movement, 1941-1942, New York: Garland Pub., p. 378, ISBN 9780824080273, In July 1941, he took command of the attack on Berane, and thereafter remained the chief local military figure. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |nopp=, |trans_title=, |month=, and |chapterurl= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, what source (if any) are you saying actually says "Djurisic captured Berane" or words to that effect? Karchmar doesn't say that. He says Djurisic "took command of the attack on Berane". Can you please clarify what sources you have abandoned and what sources you assert are WP:RS and should be considered as supporting this claim? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, regardless of the claims Karchmar's work isn't exactly NPOV. Branimir Anzulovic, whom you've cited directly and indirectly, has written a rather polemic review, according to which The most vocal Draza Mihajlovic's apologist and opinionist (he doesn't deserve to be called historian) - Lucien Karchmar - even came up with a list of philosophical reasons attacking the evidence against Chetnik crimes. In his book "Draza Mihailovic and the Rise of the Chetnik Movement, 1941–1942", Lucien Karchmar devotes his study in apologizing for Draza Mihailovich's crimes and dismissing each piece of historical evidence presented as a fraud or forgery.[7].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at Karchmar regarding reliability, but so far have seen that he is used by some credible sources. The biggest issue in this article that Karchmar reflects on is the DM "instructions". Some have found his contention that they were forged by Djurisic compelling, but historians are split on it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Officers and commissars - Pavlowitch p76

The text reads

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

This text supports the material that says

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

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

People's Liberation Movement - NOP, not uprising in which nationalists and peasants were not subordinated to communist organization or commissars. On the same page it is written:

• "Carried on the surge that was difficult to control, the officers" were not able to challenge communists' organisation while the communists were not able to find enough officers whom they can control"

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

Wrong, that is not what the text says. That material is in the context of the uprising, which would be obvious to "Blind Freddy" because the next line relates to Djilas (a communist) trying to get Stanisic (a nationalist) to accept overall military command. Of what? The uprising of course. This is prior to 18 July. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent sources, Antidiskriminator. This isn't the first time. -- Director (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is what Pavlovic actually says about uprising in his work:

1. page 75: "Officers assumed command while communists did their best to inject some organisation and to take over...." - Yes, they did they best to take over. And failed to take over.
2. "The insurgents had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans. - The insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists. They "had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans".
3. The main commanders to emerge were Colonel Bajo Stanišić, ... Major Đorđe Lašić .... and Captain Pavle Đurišić." - The article does not mention that Pavle Đurišić was one of the main commanders of the uprising. That is very important information which should be presented to the readers both in the lede of the article and in the main body of the article. Milovan Djilas and his mention of Djurisic's distinction during the battle of Berane is unclear and misleading.
4. "Albanian and Muslim irregulars from border areas ... moved ahead and secured their (Italian) flanks... In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned, and the irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a while." - The article does not mention hundreds executed inhabitants and those who were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars. Emphasizing that Đurišić and his Chetniks were "impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region" without presenting information about conduct of Muslim and Albanian irregulars is against NPOV and could mislead readers.
5. "Local notables wanted resistance to be continued only against those Muslims who were acting against their Christian neighbours. Embittered communists turned against peasant mentality, as only ideologically committed continued to fight." - Again proof that insurgents were not subordinated to communists.
6. "Having heard of Ustasha and German terror most people felt that it was safer to tolerate the Italians, such as they were. Armed groups " - To tolerate Italians because have heard of Ustasha and German terror. I think it might be valuable information for better understanding the context of Djurisic's collaboration with Italians.
7. The main aim of the rebellion had been achieved once the setting up the client state of Montenegro had been stopped. - I had to go trough Golgotha before first shy information about 12 July declaration of independence of Montenegro was added to the article.
8. Yes you are right about Djilas. "Djilas tried and failed to get Stanisic to accept overall military command" - which is another proof that Stanisic and his nationalists were not organized by communist commissars.

• Conclusion: Yes. There is extreme misinterpretation of the sources. The more I get involved with this article, the more misinterpretations I discover. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Conclusion: WP:OR. -- Director (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"The more you get involved with this article"? Lol. You have written screeds of text on this talkpage in 203 edits in just over a month. Give me a break. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't laugh at me. The purpose of my comments was reviewing and improvement of the article. The purpose of many of 236 comments you(148), DIREKTOR(35) and PRODUCER(43) wrote on this talkpage was to write unjustified accusations and personal attacks on me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If there has been some hostility towards you it was caused by inappropriate behavior on your part. Provide reliable sources (don't start a never-ending discussion about each unreliable source you bring forward), read said sources carefully (do not force others to explain the sources to you), and bring forward proposals for specific article changes (so that the discussion does not become meaningless and never-ending), acknowledge when sources are against you (do not repeatedly push the same unsupported changes), do not start a dozen sections every day, try and make an actual contribution from time to time - and generally try not to give the impression that you're just here pushing an agenda.

People do not appreciate being repeatedly and continuously badgered day in and day out in the manner described above. All that said, I recall more than enough rude personal attacks by you yourself - so its best not to go with the whole "I'm a victim" approach. The best way to put a stop to the unpleasantness on this talkpage - from both sides - is to adopt a professional and fact-based attitude. -- Director (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed to take over

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

Yes I said that "communists failed to take over".

No, I did not use Pavlowich to support my statement that communists "failed to take over". That is bluesky assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Then what source are you using? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but you need to cite that the communists failed to take over though if you want me to include it in the article (given that you yourself do not actually edit it). Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. You should not write several sentences which mislead readers about the relation between communists and nationalists in the uprising although reliable sources, events and common sense do not support such assertion. I already explained my position on this issue with this edit and don't have much to add to it right now. Nothing you wrote convinced me that I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists

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

• What you try to do now is straw man falacy. You want to create illusion that I said that Pavlowitch actually wrote the following words:
  • "And failed to take over"
  • "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists"
  • "the insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists" - second time

Then you successfully proved that Pavlovitch did not wrote above mentioned words without ever having actually refuted my original position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Then what source are you relying on? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I explained my position with this edit and don't have anything to add to it now. You are free to disagree with me but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with my position. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Then as far as I am concerned it is resolved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Muslim and Albanian irregulars

Resolved

{{3O}}

I'm afraid that this point is a complete misrepresentation of the text, and given what has occurred in the past on this talkpage, I consider it is reasonable to suspect that your selective quoting is intentionally misleading. It is clear from the context here [8] that it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people, and that the "irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a time". The text does not support the idea that the irregulars killed anyone. They may have, and in fact they probably did, but again, that is not what Pavlowitch says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the source does not support your claim that "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people". I think you violated WP:AGF when you unjustifiedly accused me here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, from the context it is absolutely clear that there is a distinction of the actions of the Italians and the actions of the irregulars. Anti, we assume good faith initially, we don't follow it blindly. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Who are "we"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that, you need to work on your English comprehension. Blind Freddy could work that out. Your misrepresentation is crystal clear and my accusation is completely justified. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I will ask for a third opinion if source supports your claim that "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

3O is supposed to be for when only two editors are involved, but feel free, I'm looking forward to the response. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit I forgot about PRODUCER's comment. Probably because I was not certain if he supported your opinion or mine. If that is a problem then I can withdraw my request for 3O.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite that fact, I have no issue with it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

however, your 3O request is rather one-sided, and does not reflect what the discussion is about. You originally said

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

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

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

Instead the 3O should be about your original contention that the source says that "hundreds of inhabitants were executed and 10,000-20,000 were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars". If you do not correct the biased 3O I will withdraw my agreement to be involved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here is your interpretation of the source "it was the Italians that burned villages, executed people and interned people". I disagreed with your interpretation and requested third opinion if your interpretation of the source is correct. There is nothing biased in my 3O request.
• The point of my comment in above section was that source emphasize that In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned. Albanian and Muslim irregulars from Montenegro participated in this process. Does article mention burned villages, executed inhabitants or 10,000—20,000 interned people? No. That is overlooked but memory of Albanian and Muslim irregulars on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of part of Ottoman Empire is not because it was necessary to justify their collaborationism. And that is perfectly allright. But when it comes to presenting the context for activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks then the article fails to present it. That is misleading and against NPOV. I am sure that information about "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" is not less important for the context of the events than memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat that was not the point of your comment, which was clearly to ascribe the executions and internments to the irregulars. Once again, you move the goalposts when you are wrong, but never admit it. I am happy to agree to include the information about the burning, executions and internments, but my edit will not indicate that it was the irregulars that did the executions and internments, as the source only says that they were permitted to continue looting and burning, and is silent about their involvement (or not) in the executions and internments, which the source clearly ascribed to the Italians (in fact to the orders of Biroli). Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I will keep this short. It does not appear to me that the source in question can be used to support a claim as to whether it was primarily the irregulars or the Italian army that did the majority of the razing and looting. If there are no other sources for this contentious claim, it can only be noted that there were both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregular army involved in the operation. Gigs (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Then edit it boldly, I'm not your editing slave. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment about you not being my "editing slave" is unnecessary harsh, like many of your comments to me. Taking in consideration that I significantly contributed to improvement of this article's quality and that 3o proved that your accusations about "complete misrepresentation of the text" which could be "intentionally misleading" were unjustified I don't see any real reason for this kind of repeated behavior, which could appear to a reasonable observer as a pattern.

List of Antidiskriminator's contributions to the quality of the article (only completely or partially resolved issues).

Issue Explanation Resolved (yes/no) Lede improvement Lede spoke only about his life during WWII. That did not correspond with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Yes Lede starts with 1942. What did Đurišić do in 1941? There was no pre-1941 information in the lede Yes they met their downfall in May 1945 It was unclear what happened to Djurisic's followers Yes There is a picture which could be beneficial to commemoration section An useful picture was proposed to be added to commemoration section Yes Missing context of the relation between Djurisic and partisans There is a half of the sentence which mentions some atrocities committed by partisans in Kolasin. Such important information is presented in half of the sentence. Without any context. Yes Voivode The article did not mention Djurisic's title of voivode Yes Report of the International Commission Statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine and quoted in 1914 report of the International Commission were used to support assertions about 1941 events Yes Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror were overlooked in the source and the text of the article only mentioned 5000 refugees out of 25000 who were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Generally, major grievances of Montenegrins against Italians were not properly explained. Yes When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943? The article presented assertion about Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November. He actually reached Belgrade in November but was captured in Serbia in October. Yes To Slovenia or to Greece? The article presented wrong information that Đurišić "argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia". In fact Đurišić had wanted to withdraw through Albania to Greece. Yes Karađorđe's star The article did not present information that Đurišić was awarded with Karađorđe's star Yes One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks Information about one of the aims of Case Black being disarming of all Chetniks in Montenegro was overlooked in the source already extensively used in the article. Yes NOVA's proposal In 2011 one Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) proposed building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. Yes Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising The full explanation of the distinction between communists and nationalists was overlooked and article only presented information about intention of Chetniks to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region without explanation that Communists wanted to continue with the revolution by turning against their class enemies. This is basically corrected with this diff. Yes July uprising The article did not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising. His involvement is mentioned later, but the information about Đurišić being one of three "main commanders" of the uprising to emerge is overlooked although it is presented in source extensively used in the article. Partial Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists The existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. The explanations presented in the sources already used in this article are overlooked. Partial Not comprehensive and well-researched Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 1) Declaration of Independence of Montenegro, 2) Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans , 3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, 4) Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces Partial First uprising against Italians - then Itallian occupation of Montenegro The chronology of the sections is wrong. Partial Muslim and Albanian irregulars Does article mention that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" in this action of both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregulars? Not completely. I still believe that this information is very important for the context of activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks. Much more important than justification of irregulars' actions with memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire. Partial

I politely ask to please be so kind not to continue with this behavior.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

and I politely ask you to edit the article itself if you consider your concerns to be legitimate. I have no intention of reading your TLDR post about how good you are for this article. Either edit in article space like the rest of us or be ignored. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I added information that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

During discussion in this section you emphasized "Blind Freddy work that out" (diff). I did not know who is Blind Freddy until I checked now and saw that in Australian English (your userpage says that you live in Australia) it means (link):

imaginary incapacitated person held up as an archetype of incapacity

This was not the first time you compared me with Blind Freddy (diff and diff). I apologize if wiktionary is wrong and if "Blind Freddy" does not actually mean "imaginary incapacitated person held up as an archetype of incapacity", but nevertheless I would appreciate if you please would not compare me with Blind Freddy anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I shall cease using the vernacular when interacting with you. That is a turn of phrase used in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes. While wiktionary is correct in a literal sense, it does not reflect the context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposed "proof" that insurgents were not subordinated to communists

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

1. I think WP:Original Research policy applies to article space on the first place. Explanations on talk pages sometimes can involve in-depth arguments based on interpretation of reliable sources.
2. There was no need to create five separate sections in less than one and half hours (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with almost the same text as number 1) just to write comments about issues discussed in other already existing sections.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are in a position to be casting stones at other editor's who create new sections... Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

First uprising against Italians - then Itallian occupation of Montenegro

Solved:The timeline issue of the section titles is resolved.

There is something wrong with timeline and sections of this article. The section about uprising in Montenegro precedes the section about Italian occupation of Montenegro which starts "In October 1941, Draža Mihailović...." although Italian occupation began much earlier. Only after Italy occupied Montenegro there was uprising, not before.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Please stop cluttering the talkpage, Antidiskriminator.. -- Director (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC) this was just not specific enough, I have modified the section title to reflect the content. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I think that it is still not specific enough, too long and against guidelines. Maybe it would be better to create separate subsection on Italian occupation above small portion of the text beginning with "In April 1941". The section currently named as "Italian occupation of Montenegro 1941–1943 following the uprising" could be renamed to "Montenegrin anti-communist resistance". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC) lol. Now that would really be against NPOV. My POV alternative would be "Montenegrin Chetnik collaboration with the Italians". Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Collaborationism is cooperation with enemy forces against one's country. Although sources mention collaboration of Chetnik with Italians in case of the events described in this section it was obviously not collaborationism. In Montenegro in 19942 Chetniks cooperated with Italians not against their country, Yugoslavia, but to protect their country and its people from communist irregulars and their atrocities. The objective of this cooperation was not collaboration. The source says that regarding Italians Chetniks "had no political objectives except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population". That is exactly what is explained in this section. It is predominantly about anti-communist resistance starting with Mihailovic's instructions (which are actually disputed by more than two historians) which emphasize that Chetniks should not cooperate with Partisans (overlooked by you, though important for the context of future events). The context of the events explains such objectives of Chetniks. At the beginning of 1942 communist irregulars started with massacres of civilian population and only in order to protect people from communists and their atrocities Đurišić and other Chetniks had to cooperate with Italians. And they were successful. "During the rest of 1942, Italian operations in conjunction with their Chetnik auxiliaries forced the remaining Partisans out of Montenegro". Then they held a conference in Shahovici and confirmed their political objectives. To restore "pre-war status quo in Yugoslavia", not Socialist Yugoslavia nor Italian occupied Yugoslavia. This political objective would contradict collaboration title of the section dedicated to anti-communist resistance. This is not the first time you laugh at me. I don't think there was anything funny in my comment nor in the events which were subject of this discussion. Please don't laugh at me anymore. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Believe you me, it is funny to me. In both meanings of the word. However, when I find your comments amusing in future, I will endeavour to restrain myself from expressing my mirth on the talkpage. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC) There is also a chronological mistake in section about 'German occupation of Montenegro 1943–1944'. It starts with spring of 1944.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC) I think that adding only half of the sentence about Italian capitulation at the beginning of this section do not resolve this issue. There is complete paragraph in the previous section which explains events after German occupation of Montenegro.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Based on recent attempts to resolve this issue (diff, diff and diff) it is obvious that it is not only me who think that there is a problem with timeline and sections of this article. Therefore it was wrong to emphasize that it was only my opinion that this issue is not resolved (diff). Renaming the section about Italian occupation to: Italian occupation of Montenegro (October 1941–December 1942) could mislead readers to believe that Italian occupied Montenegro only in period October 1941–December 1942. I propose four main subsections within WWII: Italian occupation of Montenegro, Uprising Case white Case black German occupation of Montenegro Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction Aftermath. There is a problem with Aftermath section also. It is within WWII main section but contains information about events in 2010. All such events should be moved into Commemoration section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Y I moved part of Aftermath section which described after WWII commemoration events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I agree the following text should be moved to the Commemoration section. "Serbian diaspora in the United States set up a monument dedicated to Pavle Đurišić at the Serbian cemetery in Libertyville, Illinois. The management and players of the football club Red Star Belgrade visited it on 23 May 2010." Frankly it is not relevant that there are monuments to DM and MD there, the section is about commemoration of Djurisic. A fulsome explanation of "what monuments to who are where" belongs in the Chetniks article, not this one. I have come round to the idea that the sections need to be re-titled to reflect not only content but chronology, I am not happy with the current sections, but I do not agree with your proposed section headings because- Almost all of Djurisic's combat involvement in Case White and most of the massacres conducted just prior to his engagement in combat operations occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Montenegro, so it would be inappropriate to indicate via a sub/section heading that Case White was part of the Italian occupation of Montenegro. Djurisic's involvement in the massacres is a significant aspect of the article and the content of the Case White section and should be included in the relevant sub/section heading. Perhaps so much so that the massacres should in fact have their own section. Djurisic's capture in the preliminary operation of Case Black on the other hand occurred in Montenegro although Case Black chronologically followed Case White. The fact that he was captured is significant and should be mentioned in the section heading. Djurisic's release is also significant and should be mentioned in the section heading. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I propose to deal with timeline issue step by step. First to create basic section structure like this: Italian occupation of Montenegro (with several subtitles which can remain unchanged for now) German occupation of Montenegro Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction Aftermath. then it would be easier to agree about each subtitle within lower structure. Taking in consideration that article says that: "Late in the planning, the Italians began to prepare and equip Chetnik detachments, including that of Đurišić, for involvement in the operation... As Italian auxiliaries, Đurišić's detachment was so dependent on the Italians for arms and transport that it had not left Montenegro until 18 January 1943, only two days before the first phase of Case White was to begin." it will not be mistake to leave Cases White and Black within Italian occupation section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid that giving precedence to plain chronology over content in the structure does not suit the key aspects of the content per my points above. I also disagree with the focus on occupation regimes ahead of the events directly related to Djurisic, ie massacres, and Cases White and Black. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I have re-structured the sections and subsections to place the uprising and his collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro clearly in the context of the Italian occupation of Montenegro (per your 1. above), however I have retained the remaining 'event' based section headings. Neither the events of Case White and the "cleansing actions", or Case Black and his capture occurred in the context of the German occupation of Montenegro. Case White and the cleansing actions did not occur in Montenegro at all, and whilst Case Black and his capture did occur in Montenegro, the Italians were still in occupation at that time. It is therefore inappropriate to put Case White in a "German/Italian occupation of Montenegro" section, and it is also inappropriate to put Case Black in a "German occupation of Montenegro" section. As they are dealt with chronologically, it is much clearer to use 'event' based headings for the latter subsections rather than 'occupation' based ones. So that is what I have done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks. The timeline issue of the section titles is finally resolved. You overlooked what I wrote. That can happen with late night editing. The section structure I proposed did not place Case White and Case Black within German occupation subtitle so there was no need to explain that they did not occur "in the context of the German occupation of Montenegro". I actually proposed those subtitles to remain within Italian occupation section, with unchanged titles, for now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Solved: The only political objective added to the article.

Resolved The source (JT) about agreements between Chetnik commanders in Montenegro (including Djurisic) and Italians: p.210: "All this agreements involved either joint actions or independent Chetnik action against the Communist-led Partisans" p.211: "The agreements also stated that the Nationalist Movement and the committee that led it had no political objectives, except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population. The concluding provision of the agreement is particularly significant: The Comittee of Nationalists of Montenegro obliges itself to undertake everything that is in its power and authority to preserve order and discipline in the country and will counteract all possible actions that could be directed against the Italian authorities." The article quotes one sentence - the concluding provision. I think it is wrong because the source uses this sentence only to prove that Chetniks' collaboration with Italians "had no political objectives except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population". Without context of the concluding provision readers could be mislead to believe that this agreements were signed exactly because Chetniks and Djurisic had political objective to collaborate with Italians.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Can you please have another look at your comment and edit it to make the English less tortured? It hurts my brain to try to make sense of it. There are missing determiners, pronouns, conjunctions and/or adverbs. It is very hard to work out what you are trying to say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC) If you believe such an edit meets WP policies, make the edit. If you choose not to do that I will quite reasonably assume you do not really believe the edit is needed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC) I made the edit, though I don't think your comment makes much sense.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing in article space

This article belongs to the community, like all articles. If anyone has concerns about perceived deficiencies with the article, they should edit the article boldly in accordance with WP:BRD. Choosing not to edit in article space, and instead only make critical comments on this talk page will run the risk of being ignored, by me at least. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Critical comments pointing out valid flaws are constructive and should not be ignored if they can be used as a tool to improve the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, on this article and in respect of your involvement with it, they are pointless unless you actually wish to edit the article, or at least propose an actual edit. As far as my interaction with you on this article is concerned, my firm position is that you should edit in article space and discuss here if you are reverted or your edit is modified to the extent that you believe the point has no longer been made. That is strict WP:BRD, and given our ongoing interaction here and elsewhere I believe that will avoid needless discussion and miscommunication here. So, in response, despite your assertion that your comments should not be ignored, I will be ignoring your future posts on this talk page unless they relate to a revert of an actual edit of the article, or where you include in your post a draft of the sentence or paragraph you believe needs to be added/modified. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)