Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article needs to be toned out a bit

I'm currently reading several publications (yes, university publications) about the guy and I think this article needs to be a little more balanced. I was puzzled at first because I had been only subjected to the "Mihailovic is a hero" version, so it motivated me to read about the subject. Most of the sources I have found indicate that the reality of Mihailovic was far more nuanced than what the current article suggests. Apparently, although some Chetniks leaders and groups did collaborate with the Germans and (far more) with the Italians, it is very debatable that Mihailovic himself collaborated with the Germans. Although he took advantage of other Chetniks leaders' collaboration with the Italians (a collaboration he did not initiate), he seems to have remained an adversary of the Germans until the end. Keep in mind that, after reading about the subject, I am not "pro-Mihailovic" (nor am I pro-Tito) : I think the guy was something of a klutz, arguably far less effective than Tito as a resistance/guerrilla leader and that he was mostly defeated by his own semi-competence and wishful thinking. He was little more than a figurehead as far as most of the "Chetnik" groups were concerned. As for the argument of him "attacking allied troops", I don't think it has much weight : considering the Partisans as Allied troops equivalent to the British or the Americans is not very realistic. I lack the time to work on the articles right now, but I plan to do so when I have enough spare time. As several quality sources contradict the current version, I think the article should be more balanced than the "Mihailovic was a traitor" version, although I certainly don't buy the "Mihailovic walked on water" thesis any more. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand you're being objective and I'm glad this article is getting some attention. Let me comment at length on some of your statements above.

• "although some Chetniks leaders and groups did collaborate with the Germans"
  • Again the flawed "1941-1943 perspective". "Some Chetnik groups collaborated" is a misconception "based" on a partial view of the war. Italy capitulated in 1943 and the Germans took over the collaboration with the Chetniks (the Germans had little choice but to do so, in fact). Collaboration with the Germans was near-total after 1943. In the 1943-1945 period, increasingly as the war neared its conclusion, nearly all Chetnik corps were taking orders from the Germans.

• "I don't think it has much weight : considering the Partisans as Allied troops equivalent to the British or the Americans is not very realistic."
  • In 1944 and 1945 the Yugoslav state was the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, fully recognized by the Allies (including the King's government in London). The "Partisans", i.e. the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, were the (recognized) military forces of said Allied state. Henceforth to consider them "not equivalent to the British or the Americans" in some way is simply incorrect (of course, they cannot be compared militarily, but I trust we're not discussing that aspect).

• "He was little more than a figurehead as far as most of the "Chetnik" groups were concerned."
  • It is true he had great difficulty controlling some of his "units", but as their commanding officer (fully aware of the widespread collaboration), he is responsible for the conduct of his troops. Figurehead or no, "Mihailović was a traitor".

I've been reading on WWII Yugoslavia for years and its something of my hobby (always using non-Yugoslav English sources). Its an interesting and above all complex chapter of WWII to be sure, but the issue of Mihailović is not really as "nuanced" as it may seem.

He wanted to establish a unitary Yugoslav kingdom, where "Yugoslav" would be little more than a synonym for "Serbian" (similar to the pre-war situation, but likely with even more Serbian predominance given the "Croatian treason"). How was he to achieve that? By biding his time. By keeping his troops alive and well until the right moment when they had a chance against the Axis, preferably when Churchill's phantom landing in the Balkans took place. In the meantime however, the priority was to make sure that his Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland was the only resistance movement in Yugoslavia. He could not achieve this goal on his own so he consented (or at least did little or nothing to oppose) his troops collaborating with the Germans, Italians and the Croat Ustaše(!). Unfortunately for him, the Allies wanted someone who'd keep German divisions out of Russia and Italy so they supported Tito in late 1943, granting his forces the status of the Yugoslav military. So in the end you have troops under Mihailović's command working with the Axis to destroy the Yugoslav army. You tell me, is Mihailović a traitor? Far from a "klutz", his strategy was highly logical and perhaps even "humanitarian".

I'd like to be clear on a few more points. 1) As Field Marshal Von Weichs put it "though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them", i.e. he was doing his best that he, as the commander, remains detached from the near complete collaboration his troops were engaged in. 2) As you say, Draža Mihailović most certainly did NOT like the Germans, and the Germans did not like him, but they needed each other. They both wanted "peace and quiet" until the big fighting was over (each hoping the other would lose), and they both wanted the communists removed from the scene. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, not quite certain that the King recognized the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, although he did recognize the partisans : he hoped to remain king, didn't he ? As for Mihailovic, I certainly won't question the fact that he was primarily a Yugoslav/Serbian nationalist, as his conception of "Yugoslavia" was actually the Serbia-dominated monarchy. Several sources I have read state that he did not order himself (nor approve) the massacres committed by the Chetniks against croatian/muslim civilians, but he failed to take action against them and hid them from the Allies. Not quite convinced that the collaboration of many of his men makes him a traitor if he did not take active steps in collaboration : the Chetnik movement, although it styled itself an "army" was not really a movement at all, but more of a large number of groups, most of which recognized Mihailovic as a "moral leader", but whose officers had little or no contact with the man. I should double-check the source, but one book I have been going through (and one highly critical of the Chetniks) states than in 1943/45, the Germans considered that about one third of the various Chetnik groups were still rebellious, and still attacked their troops (although the figures confirm that they were obviously less active than the partisans). The Germans still had a bounty put on Mihailovic's head after 1943, and I'm not quite convinced that it was only a "false flag" operation, although I have also to double-check this. Anyway, I think, as stated above, that this article should be more balanced, since the fact that he is primarily and widely remembered as a collaborator is simply untrue : from what I have read, De Gaulle, who was certainly no collaborator himself, consistently refused to meet Tito, since he considered that he had "murdered" Mihailovic. IMHO, the article should stress a little more the "controversial" aspect of the man, and show how he was a ultimately a victim of his own ambiguities and (utterly) failed strategy. His lack of skill as a political strategist did not help either, especially against a grizzled Komintern activist like Tito who had spent years in clandestinity and guerrilla. The article should also specify from the start that while some authors consider him a traitor, others still defend him, and others paint a more ambiguous portrait of the man. I am not exactly a fan of the guy (nor am I a fan of Tito), but I think the article could do him a little more justice. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure, you the King recognized the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. Even the name of the state itself is the result of a compromise between Tito and Šubašić - notice that "Democratic Federal" are the things they agreed on, but they did not define the state as a kingdom or a republic, leaving that for the post-war elections. De Gaulle as a conservative may have been disappointed that France lost Yugoslavia as one of its closest allies in the Balkans, but that did not prevent his predecessor and successor to decorate Tito with the Légion d'honneur and Ordre national du Mérite respectively. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, from what I read, king Peter hoped to remain king, although he might have settled or being king of the Democratic Federal Yugoslav Kingdom, or something like that. As for de Gaulle, I don't think it is a matter of conservatism, he was just sincere in considering Mihailovic a fellow resistance leader. The Légion d'honneur stuff is of course a matter of geopolitics : given the fact that Tito was the only "communist" leader who had left the "communist block", western countries were of course eager to have good relations with him, not that it diminishes his actual merits in any way. As for the fact that Mihailovic fought the "Allied yugoslav troops" (i.e. the Partisans), I am not really convinced either : given the fact that pre-1943, the official yugoslav troops were the chetniks (and Mihailovic was hailed as a hero all over the place), given also that Tito was fighting them as well as the Germans, that would make Tito a traitor pre-1943 ! Anyway, I certainly don't want to start a fight over Mihailovic, especially since I now have knowledge about the guy AND the actual events in war-time Yugoslavia : I just think the article should be more nuanced and stress the fact that his role is still disputed today. His presence in the "collaboration in Yugoslavia" box should have something of a "disputed" specification. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

De Gaulle the resistance leader... probably as much as King Peter II :). Well yes, strictly speaking Tito was a wanted traitor before 1943. The difference was that he fought the Germans as well. So he was a traitor in that he was a revolutionary, but not a collaborator. But I don't see how all this effects the fact that Mihailović fought against the local Allied military - while his units were receiving supplies (and even orders) from the Axis. The Chetniks held the line with the Axs, and even surrendered to the British and Yugoslav forces alongside all the German and collaborationist forces, and you're saying their commander was not collaborating? See my point? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this source for example? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, of course, but the fact is that other sources say either the opposite, or at least give a different version, so it should be quoted and put into perspective. As for Mihailovic "fighting the local Allied military", I don't think this is a very valid argument : from his viewpoint, Mihailovic was just fighting communist rebels and remained loyal to the King. The point is also that, de facto, he was not the commanders of most "Chetnik" forces, as the movement was not a real, coherent, movement, to start with. BTW, I took the time to check the sources and, indeed, De Gaulle kept considering Mihailovic a hero and some sort of "brother-in-arms" (he even thought of Mihailovic as some sort of serbian equivalent to himself, I kid you not ! Source : Alain Peyrefitte's "C'était de Gaulle", volume 2) and considered that Tito was a fiend for murdering him. It was not even a political matter, since he thought that Tito was the real deal for keeping Yugoslavia together after the war (De Gaulle's viewpoint was, basically, that there was no such thing such as Yugoslavia and that it only held thanks to Tito - quite correct, I think). He simply despised Tito as a human being. As for the comparison with King Peter II, I wouldn't agree : I am not a de Gaulle complete fan, but he was something more serious. Anyway, putting the de Gaulle argument aside, I think the article, as a whole, should be rearranged a little by putting all sources and facts into perspective. I won't have the time to do so before some weeks (or maybe some months), but I'll try to work at it when I have five minutes. (my goal is also to remake the french Mihailovic article, which is a complete shrine to him, and is therefore utter crap). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me go through the sources once more...

• Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9 (relevant link, please see "Chapter Seven: The Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy")
  • Mihailović attempts to contact the Germans at Divci in 1941. He fails to reach an agreement, which causes Operation Mihailović (December 6, 7 1941) - an attempt by the Germans to capture him alive. This fails.
  • March 1942, Mihailović meets with representatives of the German Serbian Military Administration (SMA), the occupation authority in Serbia (with German knowledge and permission). Mihailović "offers to put himself [the Yugoslav Minister of War] at its disposal for the struggle against the communists". Even though Mihailović is now Yugoslav Minister of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, his offer is once again refused by Bader.
  • June 1942, Mihailović arrives in Montenegro, where the Chetniks have already "concluded several collaboration agreements". He "left in Serbia twenty legalized [Chetnik] detachments, serving under Nedić's [SMA] authority." The author makes it clear he "legalized" the detachments (placed them under the command of the occupation) so as to "save" them (if this were the Partisans, of course, they would've been executed to a man). "The legalized Mihailović Chetnik detachments became part of Nedić's auxiliary troops comparable in status to the Chetnik detachments of Kosta Pećanac." These units (the "legalized Mihailović Chetnik detachments") were placed under direct German command by order of General Bader of April 10 1942.
  • Summer and autumn 1942, Draža Mihailović authorized "occasional acts of sabotage against communication lines", "under pressure from the British who were anxious to impede the flow of supplies to German troops in Greece and Africa". He issued an order to that effect on August 9 1942. It was intercepted by the German radio service in Belgrade, which noted in its report to headquarters: "with this order [of August 9 1942] General Mihailović took for the first time a definite position against the occupying powers", and added that the order was obviously British-inspired. (these are just several excerpts, please read the whole chapter)

This is just one source, of course. I assume you've gone through the link in my previous post? The rest are in the article, mostly available at Google Books. Its important to keep in mind that these are highly professional publications, based on primary sources, and practically devoid of any emotion (particularly Tomasevich). There really isn't any doubt as to the fact that he did actually collaborate with the occupying powers, personally. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure,but I have been through "highly professional publications" myself, actually, and they are conflicting, so this should be stressed. That is the main point. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My main point is that we will not be "interpreting" anything, but will simply convey the facts, the events - as they happened. My other point is that these events do not leave any room for doubt as to whether he was a collaborator. Since I have thus far acquired relatively detailed knowledge of his actions during WWII, it seems to me obvious that these sources that may or may not depict him as a "hero"(?) or even "non-collaborator" are in blatant contradiction with the hard cold facts (primary sources, such as German OKW reports). This is, in fact, what I've been trying to say all this time... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I don't care either about "interpretations", but the fact is that the facts, "cold and hard" they may be, are still being debated and that the sources are conflicting, so the article should put this into perspective. Then again, I'd like to discuss this when I have the time to seriously work on the article, which is not right now. (and I'll have to put the godawful french article into shape before that). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

POV... again

User:FkpCascais, you altered the wording of quoted documents, you attempted to discredit respected professional historians on the basis of their nationality, you added your personal thoughts and feelings into the article, and you did your absolute best to push your POV in the article. We generally do not try to degrade or discredit a sovereign country's authority by emphasizing its economic doctrine ("the capitalist US decorated Mihailović"?). To add to all this, your grammar is noticeably faulty. "Polemically considered"? I see I shall have to repeat myself once more: there is no question whatsoever that Draža Mihailović was an Axis collaborator. Do we forget 1943, 1944 and 1945? I'm really running out of debate on this subject. Please do not alter the lead or add POV to the neutral wording of this article without prior discussion on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The sources are not to be copy/edited, as they mostly never were.
2. Why do you consider that simply by mentioning their nationalities those respected professional historians are discredited?
3. In this article, some futher ideological mentioning is clearly needed for better understanding of the subject by everybody. Otherwise, may give a different wrong impression, that I´m starting to suspect that you conveniently desire.
4. If my grammar is "faulty", please help, if you can, if not, others may, so please don´t monopolise the article.
5. "Polemicaly considered", yes, simply considering him a nazy colaborator is "polemic", and a much better lead is needed in the article. His person is far more complex than that, but you insist in that point. Is it maybe because you are Croatian, and have no simpaties (or reasons for it) towards Serbs, as seen by all your recent edits. You seem to have a clear intention to show the entire movement as colaborators... (hmmmm, its clearly way more complex that that).
6. Same way I could ask you: Do we forget 1941, 1942 and 1943? He was a leader of a resistence movement, and you just want to deny that.
7. Please don´t ask "please" to people don´t change your highly POV edits. I could also ask you: Please this and that, isn´t this just ridicoulos?
8. You are the one that changed the lead, remember? Please, don´t change the lead before prior discussion.
9. You are acusing me of being POV? Are you joking? What edits of mine are POV, please tell me.

I´m not deniying anything written there, neither changing the texts, but you are acting so "jumpy". My edits are not violating any of the "principles" you allegedly defend on your user page, but here suddently, those same principles are broken by you. You are constantly accusing me and trying to intimidate me, but, as you say in your own userpage, nobody is really free of POVs, so you, as a Croat, really think that only you have the NPOV here. And you told me in my talk page: " It was attempted before by people who were under the same misconception (a common misconception in Serbia, where a large number of people apparently harbor blatant illusions concerning the Chetniks and Mihailović)",,. You seem to be very wrongly informed about people in Serbia, have you ever even been there? Do you even know any Serbs? What a POV opinion about Serbs in general you have, and you consider yourself an expert in the subject? And, stop trying to demonstrate a "common misconception" here, that clearly violates the WP roles. Everybody can see my edits, and can see your reaction. This will say it all. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you expanded the parts of the article you were interested in expanding. Thank you, that is exactly the best solution. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] If I sounded jumpy, then I apologize. You must understand this is maybe the tenth discussion I've had on this exact same subject, it may be that I can't devote the same energy every time. Your wording seemed to rationalize simple facts. "He was a collaborator" became "he is polemically considered a collaborator", "he was convicted of treason" became "the evil communists convicted him of treason" (even though he was obviously guilty of treason, so point one to the evil communist courts), historian Žerjavić became "Croatian historian Žerjavić" (an unnecessary note, unless one implies a baseless accusation of nationalist bias) etc. Excuse me for saying so, but this is textbook POV and unencyclopedic wording. To be frank I know you're being neutral, which is more than most of the people we get here are, but your perception of neutrality is not shaped by sources, but by a vague idea of complexity of this rather simple issue (WWII Yugoslav history is endlessly complex, but the matter of Mihailović's collaboration is not). This idea is, in my view, causing you to enter unencyclopedic wording and phrasing into the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But, you insist in a edit-war. Maybe the number of discussions that you had indicate something. And stop adding your own POV to my edits. You are the one including "evil" to communist (where did I said that communism is evil???), and you are the one that is considering the mentionng of nationalities to those historians as "discreditable", why? You are the one saying that a "Croatian historian" is less credible that simply "historian". That is racism. The lead needs much better re-wording, and he simply can´t be only named as a colaborator. That is at least and undenyingly "polemical", so it is fair to add it. If you remove that simplicity in the sentence, I´ll remove the word "polemical", if it is adequat to the eventual new sentence. And don´t call my edits "unencyclopedic" (who are you?), I see nothing unencyclopedic in them, right the oposite, they are very encyclopedic, because they stend with the facts. Stop being so anti-Serb oriented, or I´ll take some further actions against you. You can choose, you start respecting the NPOV parts of the article, or you should seriously think about your positions here. This is not an "nationalists" encyclopedia. Despite saying all you say in your user page, your actions and edits here tell me quite the oposite. And maybe you should also learn some education. You are highly rude and unrespectfull, masked in a "polite" and "tolerating" person. Stop your intimidation (it wan´t work with me), stop monopolizing the articles, and stop your highly Croatian nationalistically oriented editing of all the Serbian and Yugoslav related articles. Maybe you are not even aware, but that is simply the trouth regarding you. FkpCascais (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, I think its time to get serious. This absurd nationalist POV-pushing is getting out of hand. Would you kindly read the notice at the top of this page?

• Stop including the term "communist" everywhere, its POV wording. Its been mentioned once that the Partisans were communist-led.
• Stop altering the quotations to fit your (utterly flawed) preconceptions. Its the most absurd edit I've seen in a while
• Stop trying to discredit respected scholars by implying nationalist bias. The nationality of the individual expert is irrelevant to the substance of the source.
• Generally stop removing perfectly accurate minor edits and repairs I've gone through with. The Chetniks were formed a number of weeks sooner but started attacking the occupation later than the Partisans (and much less so), and the Chetnik movement was swiftly diminishing in 1945. These are sourced pieces of info.

The number of discussions I've had indicates that there are plenty of people who insist on trying to push their edits through with edit-warring. You obviously lied when you said you read Tomasevich, since some of the edits you went through here show a serious lack of information on the subject (you removed the statement that the Chetnik movement was diminishing in 1945, for example).

Once again: do not edit without prior discussion, especially if its disputed, and especially if you've been reverted. Your apparent plan to revert-war your new edits into the article is not very original. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But, we can also discuss all my edits one by one:

1. The lead sentence this way is way more "encyclopedic" And stop your "childish" accusational tone:"He was a colaborator!!!, and he took my cookies...", that is to simplicist and "unencyclopedic".
2. The "Yugoslav Royal governament capitullated", that is much more precise and "encyclopedic" than your "Yugoslavia lost" words.
3. "In 1941, prior to any Chetnik operation, Tito´s Partisans started actively resisting the Germans", that is simply false. The first resistence was donne by the rebeld Yugoslav Royal Army... so, what are we calling "Chetniks" here, and on what purpose? It looks its just you wanting to point that Cetniks didn´t resist, and keep "clean" your collaborators push. (???)
4. In the ethnic cleansing points, we have to make a distinction between the ethnic cleansing of ALL minorities, clearly not said, and the ones refered, and targeted by the plan. Mihailovic, and the Serbs in general, were bitter with the minorities that had welcomed the Germans, namely, Albanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Turks (maybe I forgetting some), but that is very far from the idea that was given by "your" ALL minoriries elimination idea. The Jews, Gypsies, Greeks, and others were clearly considered "Yugoslav minorities" and were not targeted in any, I repeat, any way. So please, lets be specific, and not give the wrong impression about such a serious accusation.
5. Again, what is wrong about the mentioning of the historians nationalities? That doesn´t change the facts.
6. There must be given a much better idea about a rivalry that existed between the Monarchists and the Communists, and it existed much prior to the war, but for you, I understand it doesn´t really matter, since it was an internal Serbian politics, and you don´t seem to be much willing to writte about the Serbian Royal family, neither about the divition that existed among Serbs, between this two tendencies.
7. In the article was not even one word about the destiny of the post-war faith of the Chetniks. But, since they were persecuted, and they suffered, you were not really interested in writting about it...

And stop your Tomasevic is a God tone. He is one historian, but what more? Yes, I have him (do you want a internet picture of me with the book?), but I also read many other autors, did you read anything else beside? Maybe we should "close" the wikipedia, and just copy his work? And you say: "you were reverted", reverted, by who? You! And, who are you? Do you own the page? Again, please start behaving in accordance to what you really are. And as a Jewish-Serb, I do have a considerable ammount of understanding of this issue, so again, why is that you are reverting all my edits? Your constant silly accusations and free insults just show how weak, and complexed (Serbo-Croatian:iskompleksiran) you are. And please, avoid calling me a lier, hidding behind a cp. That´s highly rude and chicken behaviour, not even needing to mention, against WP roles. You are taking this way too personaly, and by the history of your edits, by your showed incapacity of editing neutraly any Serbian-related article (your hateriot towards Serbia is just too evidente), you should really re-consider your role here. You just seem to be here denegrating all Serbian articles (I haven´t seen even one edit of yours on the contrary), so it´s you who should really choose between what you "say" you beleve, and the way you really behave (your editrs look just as a bittered Croatian anti-Serb nationalist). By the way, I hate all nationalists, and I wan´t allowed their POV to be dominant here on WP, so why should I make exceptions? The nature of my edits, is right the oposite, and it can bee confirmed by all.

Well, that is pretty much it, so, again, DIREKTOR (even your name is...), where is really the problem here in my edits? FkpCascais (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Your sentence is what we call "apologizing for someone". Is he a collaborator, yes, so we shall simply call him a collaborator. We shall not try to justify his actions somehow, nor shall we try to discredit the legal actions of the Yugoslav government by emphasizing the country's economic doctrine for some strange reason. This is an encyclopedia.
2. That's just it, the Yugoslav Royal Government did not "capitulate", but went into exile, maintaining the continuation of the Yugoslav state (even though it was occupied). This is what I'm talking about when I say you lack information.
3. The first major action against the occupation was taken up by the Partisans (Tomasevich). Again, User:FkpCascais, you lack information.
4. DO NOT ALTER A QUOTED TEXT. End of discussion on this subject.
5. Like I said, the nationality of the author is irrelevant to the information. Like you said, it does not change the facts, so there's no need to mention it. Adding the nationality is POV because it is unnecessary. You are arguing against yourself.
6. This point of yours is utterly absurd, so I'll just dissect it to prove my point. There was no "communist-royalist rivalry" before the war. The KPJ was outlawed. You have little or no idea what you're talking about (before you start talking about my anti-Serbian bias on my part, or a lack of interest in the Yugoslav royal family, you should probably check out my contributions on those subjects, I am likely more familiar with the subject than you are). You also unbelievably stated that the communist-royalist relations prior to the war were "internal Serbian politics". You must mean "internal Yugoslav politics", since Serbia did not exist in the interbellum. They are no more "internal Serbian politics" than they are "internal Croatian politics". Are you even aware when Yugoslavia (the Kingdom SHS) was founded? Or is the Kingdom of Yugoslavia just Greater Serbia to you?
7. They "suffered"? What is this, a sympathy plea? Are you trying to turn the article into an Ode to the Suffering Chetniks? :P Of course they "suffered", they lost the Second World War, FFS. On top of all that, I don't know what this point is supposed to be about? You did not add anything on the post-war Chetniks.

My "hateriot" (you must mean "hatred") towards the Serbs is non-existent. I have absolutely nothing against Serbs, as I generally consider Croats and Serbs to be pretty much identical. I am a Wikipedian, and I always do my absolute best to stay as objective as possible, and to keep Balkans articles free of bias. This mostly means opposing the widespread nonsense delusions that both Serbs and Croats harbor towards many aspects of 20th century history (such as that of Mihailović not being a collaborator, or that Croatia was forced to join Yugoslavia, etc.). In fact, I find myself opposing Croatian nationalism way more frequently than Serbian nationalism on Wikipedia. Not that I need to prove anything to you, but you might want to investigate who you're dealing with more thoroughly [1] before coming so close to violating WP:NPA. (And yes, Tomasevich is certainly a god compared to your opinions.)

Finally: would you please stop pushing your edit? I did not "start first", as my edit is unopposed. You're the one who introduced the changes we are disputing here, you were reverted, now please control yourself and do not edit-war - I assure you, that will not help you to get your edits through in any way whatsoever. Trust me, I've seen my share of edit-wars in my years on Wiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your unseriousness continues. You are distorcing so much my words and edits, just the same way you are doing it in the article. You just hate the guy, and making ridiculous accusations towards me. Where am I trying to "excuse him"? Am I challenging the collaboration fact? (I dont see that from any of my edits). And you say (well this is too much, just as all your non-sence) that there wasn´t any rivalry between Monarchists and Communists!??! Maybe in your home it didn´t... but, you are not Serb, so it does make sence. You obviously know nothing about Serbian history. You just pretend to do, with all your Croatian history perception. You are all the oposite of what you are pretending to be, and now, you just take this so personally, that you go trough all your ridicoulos accusations just because you consider my edits, as you loosing a battle!!! That is the most strange and selfish thing about you, despite not being so strange, when analizing what real purpose you may have here. Please, lets have some neutral views on the issue, but in the meantime, your edits (yes, it was you that changed radically the lead, why you lie about it?), again, your edits, that insist in putting him in the same line as the Nazy Croatian leader Pavelić, are just wrong, and very distant from the reality. So, please be calm and behave yourself. You could in the meantime learn more about the Serbian politics in that period. All you say, you just say it because it sounds nice, but what you do, is quite the oposite, so stop being false. And talking about WP:NPA, you already broke it, so really want to go this way? And yes, I know very well who am I dealing here (you). FkpCascais (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but current, FkpCascais version is more neutral. Edits are minor, but overall impact is quite nice and good. This article must be neutral, as questionable points of view may be disastres in this kind of situations. And please, don't comment on editor, comment on article. -Tadija (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I refuse to be ganged-up on. In fact, rather than discussing actual issues, User:FkpCascais has managed to degrade the discussion into a personal squabble (I never called him anything other than "maybe lacking information", while pointing out sources). To be honest, my experiences on this talkpage have given me a negative opinion on the neutrality of Serbian users as far as this issue is concerned (as for myself, I think I have by now proven with my contributions that I harbor no bias against Serbs in any way, this is nothing more than an honest observation, the cause of which is apparent on this talkpage). There appears to be a large portion of the Serbian public who deeply revere this person and won't stand for any negative statement about him. When the inclusion of such a statement is inevitable because of overwhelming sources ("Draža Mihailović collaborated"), we see this kind of apologetic POV approach from Serbian users.

In short, this kind of obvious POV is completely unacceptable. He was not a collaborator because he and Tito were supposedly "rivals", he was not a collaborator because the Chetniks were collaborators, he was a collaborator because he collaborated with the Axis.

• Here's the supposedly 'neutral' sentence: "...he lead, during the war, the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to eliminate their main interin rivals, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito, being considered, because of it, a World War II Axis collaborator."
• The sentence is clumsy, POV, and frankly stupid-sounding. Here's the previous version: "A World War II Axis collaborator, he lead the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to maintain the occupation and eliminate the Yugoslav resistance, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito."

My judgment is sound on this, of that I am sure. Your sentence is POV, and because of that the very structure is faulty. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you even hear yourself? Your entire comment in POV. FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

POV again...and again

To all users engaged in the latest edit war (primarily DIREKTOR and FkpCascais), I'd like you both to slow down and keep cool, the edit warring is getting us nowhere. A suitable version of the article can be made to stand only if it incorporates both of your key points. But I am finding it difficult to follow who precisely is saying what. It is painful for the eyes to read both revisions. DIREKTOR is right that he should not be ganged up on by multiple users and this is why I want to help. I don't know that much about Draža but there is nothing I cannot quickly learn. Either way, it is more important to keep peace here among us few established users. POV pushing gets us nowhere. Now, who is trying to say what and where is the problem? (in brief) ----Evlekis (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with the guy. He is not well informed on the subject, he even called pre-WWII Yugoslav politics an "internal Serbian affair", and insists on these sort of nonsense comfort edits. I'm sorry if the ridiculous "discussion" is difficult to follow, but its actually rather simple: the fellow had recently been under the false impression that Draža Mihailović was not a WWII fascist collaborator and started removing or editing the statement to that effect. When the many sources were pointed out to him, he reverted to nonsense POV edits with which he attempts to rewrite the simple encyclopedic statement of plain fact ("Draža Mihailović was a collaborator") into "Draža Mihailović lead, during the war, the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to eliminate their main interin rivals, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito, being considered, because of it, a World War II Axis collaborator." As if the Allies were to blame for his collaboration. :P

I mean this silly nonsense is really getting out of hand. The guy even edited the text of a quoted historical document (the Instrukcije) because he did not like what it stated. xD Notice his addition of the word "collaborationist" in the Ethnic cleansing section. he also apparently feels that the economic doctrine of a country should always be mentioned alongside the name of the state. Yugoslavia must be referred to as "communist Yugoslavia", so that he may try to discredit the man's conviction of treason (which, as is confirmed today, was perfectly just and in accordance with standing law).

Its just petty nonsense, he simply insists on this out of spite, it seems to me. You may rest assured, User:FkpCascais, these ridiculous bad grammar POV edits can't stand in an enWikipedia article no matter how many times you edit-war to push them in. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem really lies in some minor wording. DIREKTOR wants to give a enormous, and sole, importance to the fact that he was a collaborator. I´m not deniying it, just making the initial wording more "fair", because the case is more complex that simply affirming "He´s a collaborator", despite even I left the affirmation. He also wants to point that any changes made, even minor, are donne to "excuse him" or "deny it", wich is completely untrouth. Anyway, you could have a much better clue abut the edits inserted in the hole article, because I done yhem in accordance to the entire text mainly. But anyway, here are they one by one, so you can latter see where they exactly are located, and see the entire picture:

• 1. His lead:

"A World War II Axis collaborator, he lead the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to maintain the occupation and eliminate the Yugoslav resistance, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito."

• My lead:

"After having a military career in the Yugoslav Royal Army, he lead, during the war, the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to eliminate their main interin rivals, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito, being considered, because of it, a World War II Axis collaborator.

• 1. His version:

"Following the Yugoslav defeat by Germany in April 1941..."

• My version:

"Following the Yugoslav Royal Governament capitulation in April 1941,..."

• 1. His version:

"In June 1941, prior to any Chetnik operation, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans started actively resisting the Germans, in what would become known as the Yugoslav People's Liberation War."

• My version:

"In June 1941, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans started actively resisting the Germans, in what would become known as the Yugoslav People's Liberation War." ... I suspect he wants to point that Chetniks failed to resists, but how can that be?

• 1. His version:

" The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;"

• My version:

"The cleansing of all collaborationist national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory" ...We must make a distinction between which minorities were targeted (Jews, Gypsies, Slovaks, others...were not targeted in any way), so we don´t give a wrong perception in such a strong accusation (making Chetniks more Nazy, than Nazy Germany!?!?)

• 1. His version:

"In Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941-1945, historian Šemso Tucaković estimated that out of 150,000 Bosniaks who lost their lives in World War II, some 100,000 were murdered by Chetniks. He also listed at least 50,000 Bosnian Muslim names directly known to have been killed by Chetniks. According to World War II historian Vladimir Žerjavić, approximately 29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats were killed by Chetniks during World War II."

• My version: I´m adding the nationalities of Tucakovic (Bosnian) and Zerjavic (Croat), so a better understanding about this (non-official) additional claims are made, and in what point.

• 1. His version:

"Mihailović was captured on March 13, 1946 by agents of the Yugoslav security agency, the OZNA."

• My version: I´m adding simply an "new governament" security forces, since the change is recent, and we don´t loose npothing in pointing that out, just additional info.

• 1. His version:None
• My addition:"This conviction was by many considered inevitable, since the Tito´s new governament has showed no mercy for any of his former adversaries, specialy for anyone from the Chetnik movement, and it was an important step towards an early elimination of any possible internal oposition. Same faith had the majority of Mihailović´s troops, having been mostly killed or emprisoned, having escaped the ones in the exile." ... Since there was not even one word about post-war faith of the Chetniks in general.

• 1. His version:"Mihajlovic was condecorated,...bla,bla...For the first time in history, this high award and the story of the rescue was classified secret by the State Department so as not to offend the Yugoslav government."
• My addition: I´m just reeplacing the last words by: "the communist government of Yugoslavia." , for better understanding of the political reasons.

Well, thast is pretty much it, so it´s really not understandable all what I was accused of becose of them... FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And I´m not "a guy", please DIREKTOR, learn some education, ... if you can. FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And stop lying, all you said in your previous comment is so ridiculous and untrouth, who you think you´re talking here to? FkpCascais (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you Cascais is - don't be too engrossed with any Chetnik label, it is the slimiest aspect of Serbian identity and the first that any self-respecting Serb (such as you) should disown. WWII Chetniks, apart from switching sides when it suited them, didn't even make their own positions clear concerning their ideology. They were purported to be a movement loyal to the Serb monarchy but they billed themselves as a group fighting for the "Yugoslav Fatherland". They sided at some point with the Germans but continued to see Croatia (also German) as its enemy; so here you have a "Yugoslav" army of "pure Serbs" bonded to a German entity and fighting against fellow Slavic Croats who themselves were a part of the same Axis enterprise. You can't be for a unification if you stand alone; if the Chetniks had one minor ally among the Croats (and Slovenes, and I don't mean plain Anti-Croat Slovenes), then they'd have qualified as a player for the "Yugoslav Fatherland" because they would have stood as one. As it happened, the bulk of the pro-unification Croats and Slovenes had joined the Partizans and fought against the Chetniks. It is also correct that the Partizans were active early because they evolved from a movement which was on the surface throughout the interwar period. I really would let DIREKTOR have his version of events on this one. This battle of all we have stood for FkpCascais, is not worth the stick. Evlekis (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this all you have too say after all the editing I did so you can analise all my edits one by one? (I didn´t asked for a history resume, I want an edit analize). And, only non-Serbs can edit Chetniks related articles? Even if free of POV´s? All wrong. And again, what his accusations of me have to do with my edits? And his behaviour? And again, what is concretly wrong in the edits? And in what way it is against anything you said in your last comment? (???) FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to write up that essay above, User:FkpCascais, in fact you should probably read WP:TLDR. Anybody can analyze your edits from the history page. Let me just say that you can forget right here and now about this kind of nonsense remaining in the article. Your English is terrible and your understanding of the subject matter faulty.

The bottom line is that you do not have the slightest idea what a neutral point of view is in this issue, being misinformed and lacking in knowledge on the subject, and you have no idea whatsoever as to what NPOV actually means on Wikipedia in general. It means writing information without trying to present it in any special light that makes you feel better about yourself. Are you even aware that you are actually altering a quoted historical document because you feel it needs "clarifying"? How does one justify that?

Once more, there is no way these horribly written nationalist POV edits shall stay in the article to make you feel better about yourself. Before I would like to advise you to 1) improve your English, substantially. This is the English Wikipedia, and you appear to have little concept of proper sentence structure or spelling. 2) You need to improve your knowledge on WWII Yugoslavia. I suggest you do actually read Tomasevich instead of lying about it. Wasn't it you who thought that Yugoslav politics and the unitarianist Yugoslav Royal Family were an "internal Serbian matter"? 3) You need to understand what NPOV wording is on Wikipedia, and learn how to avoid emotional comfort writing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I ask for advices? Why is that you suddently feel free to say all this crap to me? You are more wikipedian than me? Improve my English? I never said my English was perfect, but I did made part of my education in an English Schooll, and I worked as translator for English too, so, what is really wrong with it? You continue to be insultive, so it really seems to be hard for you to start to be respectfull and educated. So, why is the Evlekis opinion more important than Tadija´s, so you feel free to continue edit-warring and your unrespectfull behavior? FkpCascais (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not "more of a Wikipedian" than you are, but I am somewhat more experienced, so it could be said that I have a better grasp of encyclopedic neutrality. I can only repeat, your grammar & spelling need plenty of work before you can write-up encyclopedia paragraphs without someone proofreading them afterward. Judging from a number of statements of yours, it is obvious you also need more information on the history of Yugoslavia in the interbellum and WWII.

To illustrate my point, here's your last post with the mistakes corrected and highlighted:

"Did I ask for advice? Why is it that you suddenly feel free to say all this crap to me? You are more of a wikipedian than I am? Improve my English? I never said my English was perfect, but I did gain a part of my education in an English School, and I worked as translator of English too, so, what is really wrong with it? You continue to be insulting, so it really seems to be hard for you to start being respectful and educated. So, why is the Evlekis opinion more important than Tadija´s, so you feel free to continue edit-warring and your disrespectful behavior?"

Even with the grammar correction, it still sounds weird and awkward, and the last sentence still makes no sense. Even with corrections this text would not be fit for an article. (and this is just your last post) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's not throw insults about. First of all, FkpCascais's English is not an issue. If parts of it are non-standard, I or someone else can edit the parts so the message stands. I am less concerned about the article and more interested in not having this continuing running battle. Both of you seriously need to revise your own revisions and not the effort of the other. Far too many peacock terms in both if you ask me, and if you can reduce these commentary style passages, you might both be a few steps closer to seeing the subject eye to eye. I say again though FkpCascais, this really is a minor matter compared to some of the others where you have made good contributions. ----Evlekis (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I had this edit donne before yours Evlekis, so I´ll post it anyawy, without knowing anything from your edit.) Do you ever hear yourself . You constantly say things in a "paternal, I know everything way, learn you kids" way... Not a best exemple of experienced wikipedian, and you constantly talk general innacurate stuff (Serbo-Croatian:Sereš). You accused me of so much nonsence about general missunderstandings that you beleave others have (but you, of course don´t, you own the trouth). Stop commenting on me, comment on my edits, you don´t know nothing about me, and you never will, so lets keep things here, in the article. I will make my last exposition of the edits:

*1 - "case:The lead": If I really wanted, I could even put him as a condecorated war hero, but I don´t, because I know he was not that good. So, my sentence puts the evets in his life in the right order: Yugoslav Military, Resistence, Collaborator. By your way is: Collaborator,... resistence. Much uncomplete, innacurate and too simple. And he was a recognised resisitence leader too, so why you want to put that in second plan? It should be mentioned in SAME plan, not secundary. Your simplicist, "he was a collaborator" sentence, again, its childish, and sounds as "He stoled my cookies...buaaa!!!"

*2 - "The Yugoslavia lost/capitullation case": Yugoslavia capitullated, that is a fact, but this is not really a important edit. It looks you don´t want to accept it just becose its mine words... By "Yugoslav defeat" are we really sure who lost, what´s the point of the words...

*3 - "Cetniks fought prior or after the Partisans case": I see no reason of having the Cetniks didn´t fought sentence, despite being unprecise and innacurate... but even if comes to be accurate (that would be an entire new debate), I see its use just as help for your Cetniks (Serbs) didn´t fought the Germans theory, and that is simply untrouth. (We can have a report of even one beardy Serb throwing rocks somewhere in Yugoslavia, so it can be considered as Chetnik resistence...).

*4 - "Minorities cleansing case": Wow this is a serious case. Maybe my wording doesn´t appear in the source, but it´s clearly in that meaning. I´ll repeat, when the minorities were mentioned together (and as) the "anti-state elements", there were not targeted the minorities as all (in a pure Serbia sence). The statement it´s clearly directed towards the minorities that had welcomed the Germans (Albanians, Vojvodina Germans, Bulgarians, Turks...), thus collaborators. But many other nationalities, clearly considered minorities as well, like Jews, Gypsies, Slovaks, Russyns, Gorani, etc. they were not targeted in any way. So, why don´t we try to be more accurate, and prevent some racially motivated missunderstanding from those words.

*5 - "Historians nationality mantioning case": The historians nationality was not mentioned by me in all the cases. But only in this two particular ones. The numbers given in those cases are controversial and not accepted officially, so we only gain in knowing the nationality of their authors, and why they made those studies. Again, why do you insist that having them mentioned is diflamatory? We should really give the readers all information as possible, and let them decide.

*6 - "Mihailovic captured by OZNA case": since it was in 1946, I see no problem in mentioning that it was the "new" Yugoslav governament agency, why you are against it?

*7 - "Mihailovic faith in Tito´s hands was inevitable, case": That part that I added it can be better expanded. It is necessary, and the simple mentioning about the rest of the Chetnik movement elements faith is good. It can be further expanded, but what you have against it? Why is that for you is so much important to have the "collaboration" part further expanded (already is quite expanded, but you even lie about me oposing, where? Where did I opose? Or, you also lied that I denied "collaboration", where? Where did I denied collaboration? Come on , say it, since you so much insisted in it!)

*8 - "Communist Yugoslavia, or simply Yugoslavia": Again, since the change in the Governament in Yugoslavia was quite recent, what is wrong about mentioning that is the "Communist governament" that we are talking now? What is wrong? And it is not untroth.

Again, what in God´s sake, in my edits, gives you the right to say all the insults that you told me? Why you were trying to show me as nationalist, and why did you lied about all the things that, after all, I didn´t ever, neither now defend? And, what from my edits makes you think that you can give me lessons here??? Why you act so offended by all this (really insignificant) edits? Why do you take this so personally? Hey, I don´t really care to your answers to this questions, but its you who should think about them, if you say you defend all you say you defend. You want to teach me lessons? From what I saw and herd from you, you are more ignorant and empty than the wall I have behind me... So, for ones and for all, stop saying all your nonsence and lies, keep focused on the edits. And, you should get to the ground, and aknolledge that you are an awfull wikipedian, I´ll tell you why. You are also quite an embaracement to Croatians, and Yugoslavs in general. You have the very worst from there (intolerance, manipulation, laying, non-healthy agressivity, uneducation, rudness, incapacity of learning, adapting, accepting others touths, not even needing to mention, an evident inferiority complex... the list, from what I could see from our conversation, is unendless). This are my last words to you (personally), and I said it as response to your last words (and because I really beleave that all humans are good deep inside, some deeper, others deeeeper...). And it is higly uneducated to accuse people, just because they dont agree with you of unknolledge (you did this many times). Didn´t you ever touth that people gave up in their edit wars with you because they really didn´t wanted to have nothing to do with people like you? And again, I´m liying about the book?!?! I have the Chetniks BOOK, did you read the book, or only internet passages? FkpCascais (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And about my English, I really dont care much how is written here, in the talk page, but in the article. Here, I writte fast, having many accidental errors too, and also, I use to writte as I speak. So far, it is really funny to have, after all this years here, for the first time, a complain, from a non-native speaker... Hoćeš možda da ti na Srpskom ovo sve bolje objasnim? Ili na Hrvatskom? Na Španskom?, Portugalskom? Možda bi bilo najbolje na Katalonskom... Jel me ti to kao nešto nisi bio razumio, jel? Pa se zato žališ? Jeli "Direktore"?

And I´m sorry Evlekis. I understand you want to "save" me from this controversial (and really unproductive) issue, but there is no need for it. None of my edits are controversial (quite basic), and, they are NPOV. I´m sorry Evlekis, but I did nothing wrong here, quite the oposite, so, after all the insults I suffered, and for all I stend, to defend NPOV ever and ever, I just want give up just because it is the easiest way... (That is why it took me years to start editing polemical issues in first place). FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, after this (pleasent) pause, and after some thinking on the evetual solution, I have a proposition to do. Being me a person familiarized with Justice, I am obviously capable of putting myself in the oposite skin, and try to argue on behalf of the oposition. After having donne that exercise, I will say here a possible solution to this case:

I can´t really see how possibly can the Directors lead be better than mine. My lead is way more complete and objective. The case2, I also don´t undestand what is the point of oposing, and I definitly think we could come to an agreement here. Case3, I really think that the statement ("...prior to any Chetnik...") is polemical and also unecessary. Case4, I admit that changing the original words, even if in a way to turn it clearer, is not correct. So, I admit that my edit here can be reverted, but there could also be some mentioning about the doubtfull autenticity of the document itself. So, can we make a doble edit, removing my "collaborating" word from the transcript, but including in the beggining of that chapter a simple mentioning some are challenging the authenticity of the document. Case5, I admit that the mentioning of the nationality of the historians isn´t a common practice, but this case is somehow specific. I would like to here more opinions about it. Either way, the Croatian historian nationality is mentioned twice, being one in this case unnecessary. Case6, I really don´t see why cant we come to some sort of agreement of this simple edit... Case7, better wording can be donne, but a text in this way is necessary. Many Chetniks ended up in Goli Otok, a Tito´s version of Gulag. I think we can perfectly work something out. But, simply deleting it sounds unreasonable. And finaly, case7, my intention is to give an indication about the reason why the condecoration by the United States was kept secret. I also don´t really understand why can´t we work something out.

Resumingly, it is really hard to understand what made user:Director so agressive with this, and from what I have seen, he just didn´t learned anything from the block, he continues calling me disrespectfully "this guy" and he continues with his POV attitude, "...every once in a while one of these guys gets to me...", and "... His edits were also in very bad English. I felt I was trying to protect what little quality is left in that article." I have no words to this. I have serious doubts about the capacity of him editing Serbia related issues in a neutral way. This was definitely the most unpleasent experience I ever had here on WP, but it certainly isn´t going to make me give up on my way of being and working here. Hoping really to have a reasonable and educated User:Direktor after the expiring of his block, I really hope a solution to this is archived, so we can go on, and do other things. So, can we agree with my proposition? FkpCascais (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, nevermind anything written by me before. Since the attitude of the other editor hasn´t changed since the block (he still insults me by callng my edits "Serbian nationaist nonsence"), and since he doesn´t know to appreciate a neutral editor (as he already recognised I am), and since he wrongly wants to "demonstrate a common missunderstanding" here (WP is not a place for that), I am changing my position to a more apropriate one, and to one in wich I will be thinking less on the will of other editors, and more about the good editing of the article.

I will insist that the lead includes his condecorations by the USA and France governaments:

"Due to the efforts of Major Richard L. Felman and his friends, President Harry S. Truman, on the recommendation of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, posthumously awarded Mihailović the Legion of Merit". (only part of the text)

That is way too important to be missed in the lead, and only "conveniently" mentioned in the bottom of the article. A simple mentioning of this fact is absolutely necessary (unless someone considers USA and France condecorations non-important, and to be ignored).

I will also insist that the sources (the ones pretty much sourcing the collaboration theory) by the Tomasevic would be excluded from the article. He can´t possibly be considered a reliable source for this questions because he is a Croatian (thus having personal feelings included) and he published this work very conveniently in the period when Tito was making his best efforts to eliminate any possible oposition, and deliberatly show his Partisans as the only resistence moviment. Everybody also knows that he was (like it or not) a dictator, also quite famous for his routhless treatment of all the oposition... also not quite a freedom of speach enthusiast. The Semsovic works are very polemic, and beside not officially accepted, he as a Bosnian Mislim, also should be eliminated as reliable source because of the possible personal feelings implicit in his work. A neutral as possible authors, and there are many foreign authors about this isuue, are to be used.

For the best of the article (and not in making the will of others), and defending the WP policies in general, this is my position from now on. FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. The person was published by Stanford University Press and you think you can claim he is "biased" because you think so? My good fellow, your opinion on a professional scholar is utterly and completely irrelvant. If you want a university publication by a professional historian disregarded you need at least one negative opinion of his professional peers, and even then its arguable. If you think he's being unprofessional because of his nationality (I did not even know he's Croatian), get an opinion from someone who matters. In addition, neraly every syllable in his work is referenced with primary sources. WP:SOURCE:

The most reliable sources are usually books published by university presses.

To be brief, simply forget about this idea of yours. On enWiki you don't just "proclaim" university publications invalid when you feel like it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very bussy this days, but I´ll soon return here. This, his last comment here, is the reason why dialogue with director is impossible. He avoided answering to the points all time, and all he knows to say is "You can forget...", "your nonsence...", "nationalistic Serbian POV...", is this a conversation that an educated person has? To director, I will recomed you to revert yourself in the articles in question here. You are not right. Having "played in both teams" isn´t same as being a "notable collaborator", and you are really saying that we must ignore all USA and France condecorations, and just put him as collaborator? Get serious, and stop with your phanaticalism. This was a three sides situation, so not everybody that was against "your" Tito Partisans were collaborators. And, the text you are using as a "collaboration thesis" confirmation is just ridicolous (using your language). Please, a block should be extended to all related articles and templates until a consensus is reached (I don´t care wich version stays trough blocks, as director ridicoulosly and jellowsly told me, I care wich version will be the final one). In a day or two I´ll return to this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Direktor's command of the english language is undoubtedly superior to that of FkpCascais, I'd say the current intro is more NPOV and summarizes more accurately the complexity of the subject. Content matters more than style. Works published by universities can generally be considered reliable, but they are not biblical truth, and universities sometimes happen to publish bullshit. In this case, it is difficult to establish a deinitive truth especially when sources are conflicting. However, I think a middle ground can be and should be found. The solution lies in the use of multiple sources. The article still needs much work to be considered reliable, however. I hope I'll be able to contribute next month. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very very pleased you Jean-Jacques Georges had intervened. I think the purpose of this (and all) articles is that they are written in a NPOV way, so an reader can make its own conclusions. This other editor (director) has some strange complex in wich he thinks that all other editors and readers are just ignorant, so things must be simplified in the way he actually desires. I am not sure if you read all the debate here, but my editrs are not much pretencious and I was wrongly accused of so many ugly things. I completely agree with you when you said that a middle ground should be reached, and that is exactly what I am pretending here, but Direktor just doesn´t allow any attempmt in editing something, like he is under attack or something. He even said something like (not exactt words): I went trough all the article, and it´s all correct, so please go away...". (!?!?) I thank you very much for involving and it´s very nice to have neutral editors around. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think any conflict between editors on this subject would be fruitless, especially on one as complex as tricky as Mihajlovic. IMHO, all sides of the subject must be presented, with a "A said this, B said that" perspective, and a correct treatment of the sources. While I respect Direktor's involvement, I didn't think the article needed the hammer down the "Mihajlovic as hideous traitor" thesis. His biography, legacy and actions during the war are a complex matter that should be treated with care and much precision by presenting more than one side of the story. (please take note that I spared Direktor some embarassment by removing one of the sources he had added for suppporting the fact that Mihajlovic was a collaborator : the book, "Ally betrayed" by David Martin, is actually one of the sources which defend Mihajlovic and paint him as a stainless hero who was backstabbed. I'm not pointing this out as an attack against Direktor, just showing that I'm trying not to take any sides here). So it would be great if you could find an agreement on this. As I said, I don't think I'll be personally able to do anything worthwhile before mid-april, but I hope that I'll be able to contribute as well as I can after this date. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I agree completely with you, and also find the "common ground" very easy to reach, but we must be accurate and precise with wording. I don´t see why you had to "spare" direktor, and the source ("Ally betrayed") can be perfectly used then (not removed...). About the agreement, it was allways me who wanted an agreement in first place, analizing edits one by one, to see which are better and which are not... Direktor was allways the one blocking any attempts of dialogue and saying things like "You can forget editing here...". He is also blocked now... Anyway, any attempt to bring this (and all subjacent) articles in a more historically accurate perspective is very welcomed, because this simplicity:"Chetniks and Mihailovic were Germans best friends" is really childish, dirty propaganda, so it needs much work. But, we just can´t have such a extremist monopolizing this articles... FkpCascais (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The source Ally betrayed can perfectly be used, and I was actually thinking of putting it back someday, but as an example of what it is, i.e. of the sources that defend Mihailovic. David Martin wrote another book on the subject ("Churchill's yugoslav blunder"). Direktor had actually put it as an example of how Mihailovic is remembered as a collaborator, while the book says the very opposite thing. Among the pro-Mihailovic books, one can also mention "The rape of Serbia" (the author's name escapes me at the moment, but he was a liaison officer of WWII) and Mihailovic's French-language biography Héros trahi par les Alliés, le Général Mihajlovic, which I have in my possession. While the latter book goes to great lengths in its defense of Mihailovic and commits a few glaring mistakes, it is also interesting to use (with all due precautions) as it gives useful info about his pre-WWII career, his trial, and the chronological aspect of it all. Stevan Pawlovitch's Hitler's new disorder and Walter Roberts Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, while not pro-Mihailovic, give very useful and more nuanced accounts of the whole matter. I don't want any kind of conflict or hard feelings with Direktor (no idea if he is an "extremist", and I don't care anyway) but I agree in general that nobody should monopolize an article, or several articles. Actually, Direktor's articles motivated me to know more about the war in Yugoslavia, and I have been collecting info for several months now, so I'm grateful to him (previously I had been only subjected to "Mihailovic was a hero who was betrayed by the Allies" literature, so the articles surprised and motivated me to know more, which was very welcome). All of the "Yugoslav front"-related articles should be scrutinized, anyway, and I hope this can be done without conflict. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem here was quite the oposite. An enormous effort was made to "collaborize" the entire movement. I think you shouldn´t have that much in consideration all this articles you call revealing that Direktor brought. Many of them are donne by Croatian and Bosnian historians, during Tito period, so no different tone was allowed to be published in those circunstancies. And Direktor, as a Titoist and a Croat has no reasons to have simpaties towards a Serbian Monarchic movement, but he strangly acts as if there was a freedom of speach back then, and as a "open minded" editor. Tito did his best to rewrite the hole story, to show how he was the only resistent to the invasion, and any toughts on contrary, or a good word about Mihailovic, would have given life time in Goli Otok back then (as many Serbs did died there). It is only sad that people still use that propaganda from that period as "reliable biblical source". I also beleve many of the Serbian nationalistic sentiment in the 90s came from that unjustice (I´m not defending it, just analising causes). Tito did his best to demonize them, and Direktor, as a good pulpit, did it so well around here that called my atention to this. What about the edits that I did that are just explained up here, and coused that much trouble so the article is blocked? FkpCascais (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have my own opinion about personal bias and about the tone of various articles but I don't want to be too jugdemental here. I just think all these articles - on a very interesting and complex subject - presently need a lot of calm and neutral work, and that includes Yugoslav Front, Chetniks, all the various offensives, the related historical characters, etc. not to mention the subsequent articles about Tito and his regime. I think the solution lies in patient use of available sources and, as far as this is possible, collaboration (no joke intended) between editors. And that piece of advice comes from someone who has wasted a lot of time in the past on the French wikipedia arguing with idiots (and subsequently becoming the worst idiot himself). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry you had such a bad experience. I completely agree with all you stand for. I also think my actions here go in that direction as well, although I did get as low as the other editor in the kind of language used (here in the talk page), but I was not against any edits, just wanted to add some tone change and I was the one allways trying to come up with some solution (while he was trying constantly to spoke me out). Much of the articles you have mentioned are very much manipulated by the previously mentioned editor, and many other editors just gave up because they were sistematically and sometimes agressively confronted by him. It is time to end with this monopolization and manipulation done by one editor and make a open minded review of theose articles. I´m very pleased someone calm, informed, experienced in wiki debates, and most important, not involved with any sides, like you, can help here, because historical articles are not my specialty here (I use wiki for editing football, just to forget all troubles in life...) and I act more as a patroler in this articles. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) And the insisting in the theory that the meatings between Mihailovic and German and Ustasa representatives mean collaboration is also false. It´s quite usual enemy parties meating each other... We can have a photo of Milosevic together with Tudjman and Izetbegovic "meating" in Dayton, that means they were allies and collaborated together? (I read your previous discussion, and despite all, direktor did the editing he wanted, not that you agreed) FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I think you two should wait and discuss the issue and possible changes on the talk page before making anything. Direktor's english is better but the intro of his version is uselessly hammered-down. Saying that Mihailovic was above all a collaborator does not do justice to the subject. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jean-Jacques Georges, the text of the lead states that Draža Mihailović was "above all" a Yugoslav Serbian General. His collaboration is mentioned afterwards. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Excavation on Ada Ciganlija

Once the page protection expires, someone should add the info found here to the "Remains" section about the explorations being conducted on Ada Ciganlija to locate Mihailović. Whatever your opinion on the Chetnik movement, the recent attempts to locate Mihailović's remains have been interesting to say the least.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx Thewanderer. It is interesting. I think nothing conclusive was yet discouvered, but I defended an inclusion of a Mihailovic faith after the judgment from the beggining, and because of it, I was ridicolously accused as a "supporter" of him... FkpCascais (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New edits by User:FkpCascais

User:Jean-Jacques Georges, your recent revert is not very beneficial for the resolution of this dispute. I will repeat myself again: These edits are new edits, introduced by User:FkpCascais in spite of opposition from the community. The edits were reverted, but the user managed to insert them through edit-warring. The user has been blocked for reintroducing this edit in such a manner. The text has been radicalized to the extreme. Not only are the edits contrary to sources, not only do they delete sourced information, they also alter quoted historical documents, discriminate against professional scholarly sources on the basis of ethnic hatred, destroy the neutrality of the text by incorrectly utilizing ideological labels in a childish POV manner, and generally ruin the quality of the text with appalling grammar and syntax.

In light of the obvious destructive nature of the edits, I judge your reinsertion to be highly provocative. When blocking User:FpkCascais for one week admin Black Kite specifically noted this same revert you have made now as an "exceedingly obvious" disruptive edit. I think any unbiased user is capable of seeing the edit as little more than POV vandalism. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:BoDu has recently removed sourced information claiming that there is "no consensus among historians". While this may be the erroneous opinion of a significant portion of the Serbian population (judging from past experience), I've yet to see a single source stating that Draža Mihailović's forces did not collaborate with the WWII Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. At this point, with the number of ironclad sources supporting the information that Draža Mihailović and his forces collaborated reaching the neighborhood of a dozen or so independent scholarly publications, it would take some serious miracle working to somehow prove that there is "no consensus among scientists". However, I'm always willing to see these mysterious dissenting sources supporting the view that no collaboration took place.

Just a disclaimer: I am all edit-warred out - I will not revert-war with anyone on this, especially User:FkpCascais. However, if someone tries to once again use edit-warring to introduce this destructive edit, that will mean the end of discussion and an immediate report. I am prepared to discuss, but not with an open edit war taking place to introduce (new) disputed edits. When I say "discuss", however, I mean use sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You claim that it's established fact among historians that Mihailovic was a quisling. The Britannica claims that it is disputed. BoDu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

• "I" do not claim anything, I merely write what sources state. A source stating that he led a resistance movement does not have any bearing whatsoever on the issue of collaboration, the current lead also mentions that he led a resistance movement. No word games, pls.
• Britannica is a tertiary source, its good enough for some uses like encyclopedic terms, but not for this kind of serious and detailed discussion. See WP:PSTS.

I'll say again, revert-warring will be reported immediately, I've had just about enough of that on this article. User:FkpCascais has been blocked for a week for vandalizing the article with this destructive edit. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1. You know very well that you claim that Mihailovic was a traitor 2. Britannica is a tertiary source, but it is no doubt far, far, far more reliable than YOU are 3. The historians I mentioned, claim that Mihailovic was a resistance fighter until the end of World War II BoDu (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1. You are not discussing, that is not the point. The point is that the authors you're listing do not conflict with the ones you deleted. You are playing very obvious word games around the term "resistance leader". Miahilović was a resistance leader that collaborated with the Axis. I suggest you cease misquoting sources, as none of them support your edit, i.e. none of them claim Mihailović was not a collaborator.
2. You are not discussing, that is not the point. Yes it is more reliable than I am, but it is not "far, far, more reliable" than the many scholarly university publications you deleted from the article. Again with the word games.
3. Yes he was, he was a resistance leader. A resistance leader that collaborated with the Axis. His status as a "resistance leader" is not in question, its his collaboration with the Axis. Like I said, in "1." these obvious meaningless word games are a waste of your time. (Also, you are lying about the sources you listed by the dozen as if you know what they say. I read half those authors, they do not state that he was a resistance leader "up to the end of WWII" - you just added that. But don't forget - that does not matter as its not the subject of this discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you say there is "no consensus among historians", which is just something you like to say a lot it seems, since I'm still waiting to see those sources that state Mihailović was not a collaborator. The sources you wrote down that state he was a resistance leader have nothing to do with this issue, since we both know and agree he led a resistance movement. Can you show me a source that states Mihailović was not a collaborator? If not, please stop the "no consensus among historians" nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, Heather Williams. BoDu (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the source does not state he was not a collaborator, it merely states he was a resistance leader. Are you reading my posts? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you speak English? The source states (page 251) that Mihailovic did not collaborate with the Axis. The author distingushes collaboration and accommodation. BoDu (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

p 251 is unavailable in the link you provided. Either way, an author stating that he "accommodated" the enemy Axis occupation is hardly a source opposing collaboration. And even if it were so, its heavily outnumbered. And yes, since you ask so much, I do speak a little English. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source which claims that there is consensus among historians on the issue. I provided a reliable source (Britannica) which claims that there is no consensus on the issue. BoDu (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I will play this "no consensus" game you've invented to have your way. As I have carefully pointed out: Britannica is another encyclopedia - a tertiary source, stick to proper published sources. Since there are now maybe half a dozen secondary sources listing instances of his collaboration with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, the issue is not an open one. I invite you to read the sources, you will find very many specific cases where agents and representatives of the Chetnik high command (e.g. Boško Todorović, Branislav Pantić, etc.) approach German authorities and sign collaboration agreements. For a very incomplete, hastily written account, see the "Axis collaboration" section. Some users seem to think its ok to have a lead that directly contradicts an entire section of the article.

Again, I'm sorry but Draža Mihailović did indeed reach an "accommodation" (from your own source) with the enemy. This is treason, i.e. collaboration. If that is something you find hard to accept you are certainly not alone.

That said, I am not (as User:No such user suggests) immobile on the issue of the current lede. I am, however, immobile on the issue of using the word "collaborator" to describe this person. Not because I like it so much, but because it is an undeniable fact obvious from the very many sources that are listed in the article. I am NOT going to alter an account of reality on enWiki to accommodate some guy's nationalist sensibilities.

I do not oppose a less "aggressive" text if the community feels it is necessary. Far from it. However, apart from the lead there are aspects of the edit pushed by some users here that are obviously detrimental to the quality of the article. The edits:

• a) remove sources and sourced text
• b) alter the text of quotes of historical documents according to personal ideas
• c) discriminate against authors on an ethnic basis
• d) inaccurately insert the word "communist" at every turn (e.g. "Yugoslav authorities" became "communist regime", etc.)
• e) and all of the above in bad grammar & syntax

So in short, I am perfectly fine on the issue of introducing "more neutral" wording, but I will not support the destruction of the article with amateurish POV editing, and I am immobile on the issue of collaboration, which is plainly obvious. Apologies for the lengthy post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

These IPs need to be checked. Someone's likely trying to edit-war anonymously by logging out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi direktor. I seer you needed like what, 2 months, to respond me? And you reverted the article in the meanwile, despite anybody by that time agreed with you! (I did had support, and not only one!). I see you needed a serious admins advice to take this debate seriously. But again, unfortunatelly your incorrect manipulation of the debate continues.

Now, regarding my edits (you should had responded by mine previous points, but I´ll respond to you by yours anyway):

• a - Wich sources I removed? And, what sourced text? The lead sentence:"collaborator"?
• b - We can discuss this point, it´s genuinity is also questionable, and it should be mentioned.
• c - Again, I only used nationality identification of the studies authors in two cases (far from all), and in those cases can be perfectly used.
• d - "inaccuratelly"? Tell me one exeple. I see no inaccuracy in any of them, right the oposite.
• e - "bad grammar and syntax", well, others may help, so don´t monopolize the article, and again, where are those cases of bad grammar found?

So direktor, it´s getting pretty much clear this is for you something like a crusade, now obvious to a bigger number of users, and your inaccurate acusations of lack of dialog from my behalve are simply funny. I am glad the blockings get you to discuss where you should, and not making provocations in personal talk pages as you did. So, I really hope to see you able to debate the issues using precise facts and language, and I seriously hope to stop seing from you your low level debating and constant manipulation and victimization (even insults) very tipical from your previous debate with me. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall have to insist that you refrain from discussing me personally any further. I've had just about enough of your slanderous, offensive behavior. The block has not done anything to impress upon you the requirement to discuss content, not editors (WP:NPA). In addition to WP:NPA, please read WP:TLDR. Your posts are unreadably massive, and not because they have to be, but because you feel the need to discuss all sorts of things that have nothing at all to do with actual changes in the article. Post shorter posts. Do not comment on me personally in your posts (unless you wish to dispense compliments, of course ;).

The support for your edit by two other users does not mean you are now supposed to edit-war to push your POV, and does not excuse the plainly destructive nature of that edit (as described in the posts below). Furthermore, this is not some sort of contest where we count supporters, and if it were, I'm pretty sure you'd not be "winning".

The reason why I stopped discussing is simply your insistence on revert-warring with these new edits. This still stands. If the edit-war beings again I will not discuss on the talkpage. In other words, you stopped the discussions, and I'm not discussing now because I was "advised by a serious admin", but because for the first time since you came to this article, you are not edit-warring to push your alterations.

• a - These sources [2]
• b - You added the word "collaborationist" in the translation of the Instrukcije [3]. Apparently you think there were "collaborationist national minorities" in Yugoslavia. Pray tell, which are those? Croats? Muslims? Minorities in their own country?
• c - Attempts to discredit sources on an ethnic basis, while acceptable to you, are completely unacceptable to any neutral user. Again this bias against Croats and Muslims.
• d - inserting ideological labels is 1) childish POV, and 2) inaccurate for the Yugoslav Partisans and the DF Yugoslav state. One does not list the word "capitalist" in front of the word United States of America, nor the word "royalist" in front of "Chetniks". Be professional and detached. The authorities of Yugoslavia are not "the communist regime" no more than the pre-war dictatorship was "the royalist regime". I say "innacurately" in the case of the Partisans, since the Partisans and DF Yugoslavia were not a "communist" movement or ("communist regime"), but a "communist-led" socialist, left-wing, republican movement, of a very complex ideological background.
• e - "They" can help, but they don't. That's not the point. The point is that the edits are in bad grammar.

Again, I shall have to stress my immobility on the issue of the word "collaborator" in the lede. Not because I like it, but because it is an undeniable fact obvious from the very many sources that are listed in the article. Sources should not be removed from the lede, and it should certainly not directly contradict an entire section of the article. I am NOT going to support an edit that alters an account of reality on enWiki to accommodate someone's nationalist sensibilities, and previous unfounded false preconceptions about this person. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR read carefully what the Wikipedia says:

"Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries"

and

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim."

Can you provide a reliable source which claims that there is consensus among historians on the issue? BoDu (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

LoL BoDu, I linked you that text - I know what its says. Like I said: tertiary sources are fine as summaries of secondary sources, but are not to supersede secondary sources. In other words, you can't decide to disregard secondary sources because of a tertiary source. Therefore, its fine to use the encyclopedia to summarize an issue, but not when its contradicted by half a dozen secondary sources and an entire article section. WP:SOURCE:

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses.

As for the second quotation, it has nothing to do with this and I have no idea why you brought it up. It states that one cannot write "most scholars believe this or that" without adequate sources. Here we do not use that wording.

I'll say again: you're the one claiming that there is some kind of "no consensus", and yet you have no way of proving that. Not a single source that I have seen claims Mihailović's men did not collaborate. I'm not willing to repeat this for the millionth time, I feel like I'm not getting through to you: prove that there is "no consensus" and then start claiming there is "no consensus". Not vice versa. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim". I do not believe that you did not see this part of the text. BoDu (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Either you're not reading my posts, or you just don't care and are promoting a POV regardless of what anyone writes. I'll say again: that second quote does not apply to this situation. It applies specifically to a sentence structure that states there is a scientific consensus. All the quote says is that you can't write that claim no matter how many secondary scholarly sources you list. The sentence in the article does not state "the majority of the scientific community says". The quote obviously does not mean you can disregard proper sources by listing a tertiary source.

Cut it out with the silly word games, I don't think I'll explain this for the fifth time since it looks like you're making fun of me. You have no sources, so don't try to invent some.

P.S. Please use proper indentation in your posts, per WP:INDENT. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your sources in the lead sentence doesn´t state clearly "collaborationist". They only support my point, and explain well the complexity of the issue. Please, don´t manipulate the meaning of the sources. And my edits are more supported than yours, by your same sources.

• a) That sources, oh, there were others put back, you can have them iserted if you want.
• b) I see you don´t understand the sentence. Do you know what "national minorities" are? Croats? What are you talking about?
• c) You are the one saying that a "Muslim" or "Croat" is less. I never said that. And they belong to those ethnicities, so what is the problem of putting it in the context.
• d) I see no "childish" in it. Lets leave others to decide about it. You lack uncyclopedic argument on this.
• e) Again, can´t you point one exemple of my bad grammar in the article. It shouldn´t be hard, since you insist so much on it.

About the "contest" that you accuse me of suposedly making, it is funny to hear you saying that, since it was you that, in a discussion with Jean-Jacques Georges, called yourself alone "community". It was you that allways refered to me as "You were reverted" when reverted by you, as if you were some kind of "plurality". Isn´t that something close to "unthrou"?

Also, when was I edit warring, so you decided to ignore me because of it? Like 2 months ago? And who insisted on the edit war last? Was it someone called "direktor" (March 25th, 37 days since my last edit)? You even reverted the edits of other users, not only me! I was the one allways saying that I don´t care which version stayes in the meanwile, but wich is going to be the final one, and I stay beyond those words. You can have your "version" now, but you can´t ignore the discussion, neither unilaterally manipulate the article and the meaning of the sources, as you would like to. Direktor, you just continue your totally innacurate accusations in order to archive your goals... That is very unfortunate for you. FkpCascais (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mihailović was not a "collaborationist", since he did not support collaboration with the Axis but was more-or-less forced to collaborate, but collaborate he did. That's the "complexity" of it. The sources listed present a very professional breakdown of the collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks and of Mihailović personally. I cannot believe you're trying to exploit the thoroughness of the sources to imply they are vague.

• a) I did reinsert them, though it was not easy - FkpCascais kept reverting me. :) That was an accident? You didn't notice when I cautioned you about a dozen times not to remove sources and sourced material from the article? Please.
• b) That does not matter. Do not add words to quotes of historical documents. What else can I say about this?
• c) Your real opinion of the two nationalities, whatever it may be, is besides the point. The ethnicity of the source is irrelevant, and inserting the ethnicity here is a quite obvious attempt to discredit the scholars along ethnic lines.
• d) Who will decide, the audience? :) It is sufficient to mention once that the FPR Yugoslavia had a communist system. It is not necessary to mention it everywhere - that is very obvious POV. Also, objectivity is required when referring to institutions. Yugoslavia was a sovereign state, its system of government does not allow you to use encyclopedic wording (i.e. the Yugoslav authorities sentenced Mihailović, not the "Yugoslav communist regime").
• e) I can list it all day. English is not as simple as you may think. Style and sentence structure suffers, grammar less so, but that's there too.

Look, I'm not "the community", and you're not "the community". The fact is that your edits are new and that you were supposed to wait until you can reach a consensus, but I repeat myself. I assured you earlier that the best way to change the article permanently is to stop edit-warring and discuss. Using the talkpage as a vent for the negative sentiments arising from the edit-war is NOT discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so after all, with the exception of the quoted text, all other edits of mine are supported by sources and by other users. And you still fail to demonstrate one exemple of "bad grammar", which I will conclude that you tried to push it without arguments. The simple "collaboration" is still wrong, as you are now admiting. Also, the awards he receved should definitelly be considered more important, so they should be included in the lead, without reserves, unless you claim something is wrong with USA and France democracies. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not really reading all my hugenormous posts are you? LoL no, your edits are contrary to sources in that they... well, you can read "a)", "b)", "c)", "d)", and "e)".

Lets just get down to the actual text. What kind of lead do you propose now? Can you post it here so we can discuss? (Again, the collaboration is very, very well sourced.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't read all the stuff above. WP:TLDR. Keep it short, guys. A couple of points to help you along. The Encyclopedia Britannica online stuff is not worthy of consideration. It was copied from vojska.net, which is a blog, by somebody called Kanchan Gupta. Click on article history at the top of the page to see this. Regarding his collaboration, it is insane to try to claim he was not a collaborator. For example, while it is true that Chetnik fighters rescued Allied pilots, this is apparently because they were paid in gold to do this, and a February 1944 Nedić government report points out that Mihailović’s men also hunted down Allied pilots on behalf of the Germans (Cohen pp47-8). Mihailović's son and daughter Branko and Gordana went over to the Partisans in 1943 and both publicly supported their father’s execution after the war. After the Italian surrender in September 1943, the new Chetnik-Nazi relationship was strengthened when, in a short-wave transmission on 19 November 1943, Mihailović instructed Đujić to co-operate with the Germans, adding that Mihailović himself could not do so openly “because of public opinion”. The "best" that can be said of Mihailović is that he was very, very inept, and came off worst in all of his contacts with others, he tried to please those who he thought could be helpful to him by saying what they wanted to hear and he was ultimately considered foolish by all of the other major players (the British, Germans, Tito, Pavelić, Nedić...) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My proposed lead:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly condecorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians.

This lead of mine contains exclusively confirmed facts. Some other issues, as his "collaboration" are left out, since they lack consensus among historians, so it would really be too pretentious and immature by any of us taking sides on that issue. All those subjects are to be explored further in the article. The lead (sentence, or sentences, in this case) are ment to be as free of POV as possible, so that is the main reason I am in favour for the replacement of the current lead by this one, or another one following the principles I mentioned. FkpCascais (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't like a confirmed fact does not mean it isn't "confirmed". Six sources pretty much "confirm" it. I have not seen a single sourced that stated Mihailović and his Chetniks did not collaborate. Nobody is taking sides.

Is it realistic to expect that you may agree to a lead presenting the sourced fact that this man collaborated, or is this discussion pointless in the end? You should realize by now and come to terms with the fact it is indeed a sourced statement, and that, in the end, a sourced statement can't be removed with wordplay on the talkpage. If this is totally unacceptable to you, then you are not here to improve this article but to push your preconceptions into it.

When I asked you to post your lead, I asked you to post a text that would not remove sources and sourced material, but would state the referenced facts in a way you thought would be more neutral. Could you do that? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between statements "Some scholars claim that Mihailovic was a collaborator" and "Mihailovic was a collaborator". The second statement means Wikipedia indirectly makes synthesis that there is a consensus among historians. BoDu (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will write this for the absolute final time: you have no evidence whatsoever that there is "no consensus among historians". That is your own personal opinion, which does not concern anyone but yourself. Please stop repeating that, I will not respond any further if this is all you have to say. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you don´t need to respond, neither you have to be part of WP. Specially, if your only point here is to manipulate a number of articles. Please, point ONE source that covers "your" "collaborator" thesys. And my lead is covered by the SAME sources. Do you even read them? Where they clearly state your collaboration theory? And, I see you haven´t read real books, because if you had, you will know that not even one of this sources states that, unless you are manipulating the meanings on purpose (even Tomasevic is very distant from your POV). And you are even manipulating sources that "glorify" him and the moviment, and you use them for exactly the oposite! Please, point exactly where, and in what exactly source is your "collaboration theory" sourced. Because from what I see, it isn´t, and a removal of Draža Mihailović and the Chetniks is also needed from the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, and urgently! A Nazy collaboration is a too serious accusation (even offensive) to be left weakly sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, it seems that the consensus is against you, unfortunately. There are many sources that say that Mihailović was a collaborator. There are none that say he was not a collaborator. So the article must follow and reflect the sources. C'est ça. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? Are you trying again to name yourselfs "comunity"? Stop being pretentious. Give one source that CLEARLY states that. FkpCascais (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That clearly states what?? The sources all say he collaborated. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, name one source that specifically says that your man was not a collaborator. Just one. Open words: "He didn't collaborate". Over to you, buddy. Give it your best shot. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, I am not sure you know how this works. Maybe you should also read the entire discussion here, so you better understand what is in question here. At first, usually the one needing to have sources is the one wich is claiming something, not other way around. And also, I am not claiming that Mihailovic didn´t collaborate, he did occasionally, and on certain levels. You don´t see in my edits anywhere the words "he didn´t callaborate", so I don´t need to "source it". The main issue here is that some editors (not to say ONE) want to put the weight of his collaboration over his resistance efforts. Are you claiming he didn´t resist? His awards (USA & France among others) cover that (beside all sources mentioned). Just to be clear: when someone is saying someone is "normal", he doesn´t have to source it, but when someone accuses somebody of being a Nazy, that needs to be sourced. Anyway, be serious, and don´t mess this discussion, please. (and I am not your "buddy", please be respectfull) FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Following this comment of mine, please provide the exact list of sources for the "collaboration" of General D.Mihailović and the Chetniks: (attention, what is in question here is wether he was more "collaborationist" than "resistence leader", not to demonstrate one simple meating between German and Chetnik officials...) FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I filed the request for mediation. BoDu (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@FpkCascais. Read the sources. The sources list acts of collaboration between Draža Mihailović and the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia during WWII. That is the best possible source for the statement anyone could theoretically provide. I reccomend you stop trying to discredit the sources since it just turns out silly. These are top quality sources, listing the most direct evidence one could possibly find for the text in the article. Top quality. Best sources imaginable.

I'd say you are the one, FpkCascais, who does not appear to know "how Wikipedia works", rather than veteran editor AlasadirGreen27. You have demonstrated this lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy on several occasions during the discourse on this talkpage.

The bottom line here is that we are dealing with irrational behavior. We are discussing the opinions of two Serbian users who would not be convinced if we had twenty four sources instead of the four or five listed in the article.

Users unable to come to terms with the sources contradicting them will inevitably start edit-warring again, since their personal feelings and opinions are not about to convince anyone on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5