Talk:Momčilo Đujić/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wrong citation

This newspaper article is a pamphlet [1]. We must be very careful for using such sources.
However, the text doesn't say anything about the rescinding the title. It just says that Đujić later regretted for giving the title to Šešelj ("I was naive", "I ask my people to forgive me").
Who misrepresented the text? Kubura (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop edit warring. The article describes collaboration with the Italians and then the germans. If it is suggested he did not collaborate please provide sources. This point however is different to whether or not he should be described as a collaborator in the lead. The lead at the moment is extremely brief simply giving his name, position and title. If it is to be expanded it needs to be expanded by more than simply adding the words "collaborator" as if it were an official designation. The lead should be a brief summary of the main points of the article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, see what you mean. I´ll restore the category, however I´ll just wait first for a sugestion of yours about the following: I think the category should be renamed into Axis collaborators, instead of Nazi. That was what I meant in the edit summary (because Axis would definitelly be less polemical) and because the category itself may give the wrong impression of (Serbian nazi) collaborators, thus being possibly offensive. I think it would be more apropriate to move it to Axis, not only because of my last explanation, but because I think we don´t have specifical categories of (with) Italy collaborators, (with) German collaborators, (with) Hungary collaborators, etc., neither that is pretended, but rather a general meaning of Axis, oposed to Allies (not, Americans, British, etc.). Does this sound reasonable? FkpCascais (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

By all means please present something you think would be a suitable introduction and we can go from there.

I'm returning the category as Fkp agreed. He can propose a move as he suggested if he wants. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don´t intend to break you enthusiasm, but I really think the lead is good as it is. I know that your intention is to include "collaboration" and such acusations that direktor has usually added (like in Mihailovic article), but such simplicist acusational tone was one of the first things at the mediation that was agreed to be wrong. I saw some text expansion that you made, but the mediation and subsequent sources will add and possibly correct much of the "one-side story" additions you made. I´m not gonna fight here with you over it, but at the mediation where all this issues will be clarified. Btw, I hope that by now you understood that "lead" means what you call "introduction", right? FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please answer me this: Did the man not collaborate? Why should it not be in the lead?

You keep going on and on with the mediation when this article isn't even covered by it. Stop bringing it up. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he did not just collaborated. He made many other important things during his life, and numbering them all in the lead seems unecessary, unless you´re trying to proove a point, but then WP is not a place for that. I think it would be wise for us to hear Fainites opinion on this. Don´t be impacient and one side focused, ok? FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And regarding mediation, I´m sorry, but I will bring it up when necessary, because everything you´re editing here is/will be debated there, so I can´t see how could we ignore that. I still don´t understand why you didn´t wanted to participate, because you knew about it from the beggining, and because you´re obviously very interested in the subject. But, that was your personal option not to participate, but I wan´t feel understanding and be sorry for you, and not to mention mediation when necessary. If you were editing some other aspects, then it would be ok, but you´re actually editing the "heart of the dispute" at the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Described as a collaborator

Sabrina P. Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, pp.147-148, Indiana University Press

But, even as the Chetnik organization in Serbia atrophied, it gained a new center of gravity in western Yugoslavia in the course of 1942. The Italians wanted to extend their sphere of influence in Croatia and to pacify the rebellion and, perhaps giving in to wishful thinking, "tended to see the Chetniks as a fairly well-coordinated which was ready to join the Axis powers and the Serb collaborators in a struggle aimed exclusively at the Partisan rebellion." In January 1942, General Renzo Dalmazzo, commander of the Italian Sixth Army Corps, met with [Stevo] Rađenović, Trifunović-Birčanin, Jevđević, and Major Jezdimir Dangić, a free agent whose small force had carried out some sorties against NDH [Independent State of Croatia] troops, hoping to use the Chetniks in a joint operation against the Partisans. For the time being, however, the Germans vetoed any use of the Chetniks in such a capacity. In spite of that, the Nevesinje Chetniks were working together with the Italians in anti-Partisan operations as early as April 1942. Indeed, by mid-1942, the Italians had acquired a vested interest in arming and using the Chetniks against the Partisans. In addition to the aformentioned Chetnik collaborators, one should also mention Pop Đujić, an Orthodox priest in his late 30s, who led an armed band of about 3,000 men and who was, by mid April, launching anti-Partisan raids in coordination with the Italians. By early summer, the Italians were arming and supplying about 10,000 "legal" Chetniks in the Italian zoene in the NDH.

Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume I: The Chetniks, p.329, Stanford University Press

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

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Djujic has liberated much land. You forget that. He was very successful against the Croatian Nazis.

Mr. Djujic had already been fighting Nazi Germans, Croatian Fascists and Communist Partisans for a year in the mountains and valleys of his native region on the border between Croatia and northwestern Bosnia. [2]

His acts of wartime bravery included the rescue of six American airmen shot down over Yugoslavia. But he also encountered charges that he collaborated with Communists and the Ustashe on occasion -- both sworn enemies of the royalist Serbian Chetniks -- ... Mr. Djujic said later, I never made a compromise, never an agreement, either with the Communists or the Ustashe. [3]

Here, your own source jeeze, says that he was unlike other chetniks, [4] as the germans continually had problems with him.

I think your problem is that you put all people into the same bag. Do stop it, please. The chetniks were a diverse group of people, a resistance movement of which some elements were forced into limited collaboration with the Nazis in order to survive. (LAz17 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)).

LAz, cut the Chetnik nonsense please. You cannot use an unreferenced obituary, from any newspaper whatsoever, as a "counter-source" to professional historiographic publications, let alone the best publications on WWII Yugoslavia available, that is simply beyond discussion.

My own source that you link to once again, a secondary university source of the highest quality, quite unambiguously calls him a (quote) "Chetnik collaborator". And the particular page that you are linking to (p.150) describes how he was ordered to disarm by the Germans, and then "pleaded" to his Italian superiors (who armed him in the first place) that he be allowed to not disarm.

Pop Đujić, for example, was fighting the Bosnian Partisans all summer long but was faced with the German demand (to the Italians) that all the Dinaric Chetniks be disarmed forthwith. Đujić pleaded his case with the Italians, and in early June, General Mario Robotti was able to convince Colonel-General Alexander Löhr, the chief of the German Army Group E, to allow Đujić's forces be disarmed over a period of months rather than all at once.
— Sabrina P. Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, p.150

I cannot imagine why you would quote that page, unless you wanted to confirm that the Chetnik Dinaric Division of Momčilo Đujić was indeed under Italian and German control, that his commander pleaded to the Italians, and was allowed to disarm slowly rather than quickly. The Germans also did not have any "trouble" with him (thats your WP:OR) - the order to disarm was given to all Chetnik formations, but was eventually not followed through because the Italians refused in the end and stated flat out they could not manage without them (read the source). The fact that his unit was very autonomous naturally has nothing to do with his collaboration with the Italian occupation.

I'm getting really sick of this Chetnik hero-worship. Think of them what you will, build statues to them if you like, just do not whitewash and invent fake history that is simply untrue. I have however, learned a long time ago how useless it is to discuss these sort of things with you. You are not fair and you do not ever accept that you are wrong, or change your position, even when faced point blank with sources against you. You ignore them and you continue talking, your claims unchanged. I'm pretty sure you do not read more than the first few lines any every post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hero worship? Stop with your very rude stance when discussing. I feel that you are arrogant, disregarding everything.

Okay, you have that quote. Why not read the stuff right before it. You might run into Chetniks fought against the axis and it goes on to speak of Djujic as such. In fact, Djujic never disarmed! He didn't follow the German orders, and he liberated much land. It's a bitter pill to the camp the communist propaganda which states Modern-day myths about Yugoslav history stemmed from Communist indoctrination designed to suppress nationalism. The Communist version of events during World War II was that Yugoslavia's Partisans were the sole liberators against Nazi occupation. [5] Cheers! (LAz17 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)).

Chetniks fought the Axis? Yes, thats true - and it has nothing to do with this conversation. This is a discussion on collaboration. The idea that "Chetniks fought the Axis" is some kind of a counter argument to "Chetniks collaborated" makes no sense whatsoever. Various portions and units of the Chetnik movement, at various times, and in various geographical locations, fought the Axis and collaborated with the Axis. We are talking about this unit (Dinaric Division), and this person (Momčilo Đujić) - and we are NOT talking about his resistance activities, but about his collaboration activities. The two are seperate and are certainly not mutually exclusive. Cheeeers!!! :)
(P.S. Why in the world you posted that source I will never know. Who cares what the communists say, Ramet is neither a Yugoslav nor a communist, and has published her work long after the dissolution of communist Yugoslavia). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Momcilo djujic.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Momcilo djujic.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Momcilo djujic.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of allegiance of Djujic to the Italians, Germans and NDH per infobox

There is an issue of the mixed allegiances of Djujic, to the Italians and Germans and also to the NDH. Allegiance may be too strong a term, so I will not insist on its return to the infobox, however, the following information is from WP:RS Cohen 1996 pp. 45-47-

In late November 1944, Djujic's Chetniks fought in a six-day battle alongside Germans and Ustase militia in the defence of Knin against the Partisans, during which fighting he was wounded.
Djujic requested a written agreement from Pavelic that his troops could safely withdraw to Slovenia, which was granted.

At the very least he was allied with the Ustase in November 1944, otherwise fighting alongside them would not have been safe. He also successfully negotiated with the leader of the NDH about his withdrawal through NDH territory. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The World War II section contains sufficient reliably sourced information to support the mixed allegiances to the Chetniks, Italy and Nazi Germany in the infobox. Any WP:RS that refute those WP:RS already in the article should be brought here for discussion (under WP:BRD)so that a consensus can be reached. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

According to RSN discussion Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

according to one editor, (User:Fifelfoo). That is not consensus. RSN states "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". There was no consensus of several editors, and it certainly isn't official policy. Your tagging of this whole article on the basis of Cohen, whose reliability you personally dispute, is just disruptive and blatant POV warring. Continuation of this approach beyond the currently affected article (Djurisic) where you don't have a consensus, will be reported as disruption. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Different issues

The text of the section which describes the NYT obituary of Momčilo Đujić has some W2W and NPOV issues. Most of the section is dedicated to obituary criticism. That is WP:UNDUE. Even the text which describes disputed parts of the obituary has been described as "claim" (w2w) which together with quotation marks can be understood as calling the obituary "statement's credibility into question". I think that the obituary should be neutrally presented and its criticism should be summarized within one sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done I don't think so. Given the reliably sourced facts about his real activities in the war presented in the sections above, and the obvious contrast between those activities and the NYT obit, inclusion of the criticism of the obituary is necessary to comply with NPOV. However, I do agree that "claimed" and "slammed" are W2W, and have changed some of the wording. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Undue weight has been given to Red Star visit to the monument. That information is completely irrelevant for the topic of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. A visit by a football team from Serbia to a monument to the subject of this article in the US is entirely relevant in terms of the Serbian diaspora in the US (where he lived) having built a monument to him. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
"He was instrumental in perpetuating Chetnik ideas in the Yugoslav Wars" The lede summarizes the text of the article. But the assertion presented with this sentence can not be found in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"a man whose killer commando units operating in Croatia and Bosnia carried on the very worst of the Chetnik tradition." - This sentence is obvious violation of NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some context missing. He made contact with Italians "seeking an end to the persecution of Serbs, the possibility for Serb refugees to return safely to their homes,...". There is no mention of any persecution of Serbs and Serb refugees earlier in the text. This should be clarified with some context.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done with this edit
"he made an agreement with the Italians granting them free passage". Free passage trough what? This needs clarification. If he had certain territory under his control it should be explained.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
" By June 1942, Đujić and other Chetnik leaders had reached co-operation agreements with the Ustaše, although these relationships were "based only on their common fear of the Partisans" and "characterised by distrust and uncertainty". I am afraid this statement is not supported by the cited source which says that the agreements were made with NDH, not with Ustaše.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done In the paragraph concerned, Ramet uses the terms "NDH authorities" and "Ustaše" interchangeably when discussing these agreements, so your fear that the statement is unsupported by the source is unnecessary. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Judah references do not work. Wittes also did not work, but I fixed them. Juddah should be fixed too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done
If its true that Dinara division was organized of Chetniks from large part of Bosnia then it should be clarified in the lede which says that he "led a significant proportion of the Chetniks (only) within the northern Dalmatia region". Drvar is not in Dalmatia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Action on Drvar

There must be some misunderstanding with this. Đujić was nowhere near Drvar in July 1941. To my knowledge, even his fanatical supporters do not claim that "he organized chetnik detachment that seized Drvar". Suggestion: delete the sentence.--Gorran (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Point of view is pure Serbian propaganda. He is described as a defender of Serbs and killed Croats only as a retaliation for Ustashe crimes. Chetnics committed massacres as a plan to create Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.28 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The part about his defending Serbs is attributed to Pavlowitch 2007 in the article body (by keeping the Ustashe out of Knin and averting further massacres) and Ramet 2006 states he and others reached understandings with the Italians so they would defend local Serbs from the Ustashe.

The point about Đujić killing Croats in retaliation for Ustashe atrocities is also cited in the article body (to Pinson 1996). This doesn't justify his actions, but reflects what is written in WP:RS. Your assertion that he massacred Croats is true (as reflected in both the intro and body), but not that he killed Muslims—there aren't very many in and around Knin. I hope this clarifies things. 23 editor (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Times

I've removed The Washington Times and replaced it with different sources because Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states: "There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available." Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Binder obituary

Wittes writes that Binder described Đujić as "a fierce foe of the Nazis, Fascists and Communists," who participated in "epic World War II battles" and carried out many "acts of wartime bravery." A ctrl+f of Binder's obituary shows that the first of these quotes doesn't appear at all in Binder's obituary, so I've removed this claim from the article. The latter two quotes do appear in the obituary in one form or another, but Wittes takes them somewhat out of context. Is there any reason this wasn't attributed to Binder directly? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it would be better to attribute to Binder. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Order of Karađorđe's Star

Hoare 1999 is currently one of three references used to cite the following statement: "On 21 May 1998, Biljana Plavšić, President of the Republika Srpska at the time, awarded Đujić the Order of the Star of Karađorđe (First Class)." However, the source only mentions an unspecified "honorary award" presented to Đujić by Plavšić in 1998. There is no mention of "21 May 1998" or the honorary award being the Order of the Star of Karađorđe. Any objections to removing this particular ref? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten it and used only what Hoare says (as I couldn't find the BBC report and no preview is available on the other ref, and fixed the lead. If we later find what award it was, we can always add it back in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Fitzroy Maclean's Eastern Approaches (pp. 354-355), Đujić got the Karađorđe's Star from King Peter for "gallantry in the face of the enemy" and ironically ended up celebrating the decoration at an Italian general's headquarters. The source doesn't mention what year Đujić received the decoration but presumably it was before September 1943. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think Maclean is ok as a source for this. We could add it just prior to the point in the narrative where the Italians surrender, and include how it was celebrated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:V

The article currently cites two supposed BBC reports titled "Bosnian Serb president in USA, decorates exiled Serb nationalist leader" and "Croatian ministry complains about US paper's coverage of Chetnik war criminal". Unfortunately no link is provided. A quick online search doesn't yield any results. The additions were made six years ago by a user who hasn't been active for three. If this is going to go to FAC we have to be able to verify the contents of these reports. Are there any other sources that state the same things? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the first one, as I couldn't find an archived version. I'll take a look for the second one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Haven't been able to find this one either. I looked at a few Croatian news sites as well, and couldn't find an similar article. Personally, I have no doubt that is how the Croatian government would have responded, but without an article to link to, I think we have to let it go. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Admiration

The Death and legacy section currently contains a sentence that reads: "The historian Marko Attila Hoare stated that Binder's piece displayed his "admiration of Serb Nazi-collaborator Momčilo Đujić." However, the blog post cited doesn't make any mention of Binder's obituary. It merely denigrates Binder as "an American journalist known for his admiration of Serb Nazi-collaborator Momcilo Djujic" without further context. It is fair to assume that the author was referring to the obituary Binder wrote, but without a more robust connection to the subject of the article (Đujić), I don't see how one can justify the inclusion of this sentence if it's brought up at FAC. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to better reflect the source. I think Binder's admiration for Djujic is needed to put his glowing obituary into context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Wittes' critique would be more suitable for context. Especially since the other source doesn't mention the obituary at all and amounts to little more than a personal attack against Binder. At least Wittes goes into some detail about why he objects to Binder's remarks about Đujić, whereas the other source does no such thing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is mere ad hominem. Hoare is used as a source about Đujić in this article, and his observation about Binder's admiration for Đujić is germane to Binder's obituary. Given we've had to lose a couple of other BBC articles, one of which was critical of the obit, I think it is needed to balance Binder. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The scholar Ante Cuvalo wrote a letter to the editor in which he called the obituary "an insult not only to the memory of Djujic's World War II victims and their descendants, but to all those who are familiar with his life-long efforts to create an ethnically clean Greater Serbia by any means." (Removing the Mask: Letters and Statements Concerning Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina 1989-2000, 2000, p. 324). While strongly worded, this comment explicitly mentions the obituary and isn't a mere attack on Binder as a person, but rather Djujic (the subject of the article). We can also add Wittes' criticism. How's that for balance? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks good to be added, but Hoare's comment isn't an attack on Binder as a person (ie he isn't saying he is arsehole, stupid or something personal), but on his admiration for Đujić, which is demonstrated by the obituary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

PD

Are we certain that File:Pop Djujić with chetniks and Italians.jpg is public domain? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't, as I can't see any evidence of publication. It may exist in the documents relating to Đujić's trial in absentia, but I haven't been able to locate them online. Have removed it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of photographs of Đujić with Italians in Latas and Dzelebdzic's Chetnik Movement of Draza Mihailovic, but unfortunately it was published in 1979, and while the images have been PD in Serbia since 2005, they aren't PD in the US because they became PD in Serbia after the URAA date. I could probably develop a NFR for one image from that book showing him with a group of Italians and Chetniks like this one. It might be justifiable on the basis that there are claims that the one with the Italian officer against the car is a doctored image used in the Mihailovic trial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

poor sentence

"Šešelj's activities in the Yugoslav Wars as 'a man..." - activities are not men. Maybe something like "as those of 'a man ..."? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:5480:A93C:A3C3:3F9D (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"he enraged some in the diaspora when he endorsed a communist-appointed Patriarch..."

There is no citation for this following text:

"Later, he enraged some in the diaspora when he endorsed a communist-appointed Patriarch as the leader of the Serbian Orthodox Church."

It's also unclear which patriarch the text is referring to. It's likely to be German, Serbian Patriarch but without a source I can't verify that OctoberAccount (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It did have a citation (Binder), but I see some kind editor has added another and clarified it was Patriarch German. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it looks much better and the additional information that Dionisije Milivojević was the alternative option was something I hadn't considered in my initial point. Very nice. User:Jnestorius OctoberAccount (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"He soon betrayed them and began subverting Partisan units"

This suggests that Dujić owed some loyalty to the Partisans. Surely better to avoid that by taking out this rather emotive language. Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

He was aligned with the communist-led insurgency, and had fought alongside them during the uprising. This means a strong sense of reliance had developed between the two. He agreed to stop the Italians as they approached Drvar then immediately gave them free passage... How is that not betrayal? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Dujić was aligned with the communist-led forces, as all kinds of different people are aligned with each other in wars, but that clearly did not mean that Dujić owed some loyalty to the Partisans. Let’s go to the reliable sources, is there one for “a strong sense of reliance had developed between the two”? My memory of reading about this period is that what they had was fear, hostility, distrust. Perhaps more to the point, where does “betrayed them” come from, please? Moonraker (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

POV in lead

In Serbia, moves to rehabilitate the reputations of Đujić and the Chetnik movement have been criticised as historical revisionism and falsification of history.

Clearly this is true, so far as it goes, but the citations for this later on say that one journalist and the leader of a Croat party have made such criticisms. Clearly there is also official support, as shown by the renaming of a street. And as Dujić was a Serb defending Serbs against Croats, it seems reasonable to suppose that the balance of opinion in Serbia (which the sentence is about) is heavily for rehabilitating him. How can we put this last sentence in the lead more neutrally? Moonraker (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You can plausibly claim that he was 'defending Serbs against Croats' for about one year, but then he switched to collaborating with the same Croats against whom he was previously defending the Serbs, in an effort to wage war against a group that certainly also included the Serbs, so this point is very much moot. The sentence can be phrased to better qualify the support for rehabilitating him, but not beyond that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to locate the revisionism in Serbia (which is where it is largely occurring) rather where the criticism is occurring? Such as:

Moves in Serbia to rehabilitate the reputations of Đujić and the Chetnik movement have been criticised as historical revisionism and falsification of history.

To be clear, criticism of the revisionism of the Chetniks in Serbia is hardly limited to those two sources, they are just a couple of local examples who have mentioned the rehabilitation of Đujić specifically. Numerous local and international academics have criticised it, including Sabrina Ramet, Dubravka Stojanović and Sladjana Lazić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I am sure you are right, but my point is that in Serbia itself opinion is certainly for Dujić as well as against him, and probably more for. Also, as we have got as far as street naming, Dujić does seem to have been officially rehabilitated already, at least in Zemun, which has nothing unusual about it. If we were to say that, and add that there are objections to it, that would be more neutral. Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, Dujić hasn't been officially rehabilitated by the Supreme Court, as Mihailović has. If you have reliable sources about popular support for his rehabilitation, I suggest adding them, but as you can see from the rehabilitation of Mihailović, it was very political and there was a lot of opposition. You don't need to ping me, I'm here a lot and watchlist this page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have a source about popular support, but will look for one when I have time. If you wanted to say some academic historians object to the rehabilitation, with sources added somewhere, no problem. But what is said in the lead here is specifically about opinion in Serbia and is not neutral. Perhaps the answer is just to remove the sentence? There is nothing of the kind on the Serbian Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The Serbian Wikipedia is hardly a trusted authority on this subject. The academic consensus outside Serbia is that what is happening is historical revisionism, and in addition there is significant opposition to it in Serbia. On that basis, removing it is hardly neutral. I have reworded it per my suggestion above though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia is hardly a trusted authority on anything. I was using that to illustrate the outcome of what must be similar thought processes over there. Serbia itself didn’t ever condemn Dujić, so it wouldn’t need to rehabilitate him. Yugoslavia tried him in absentia, which is not a real trial. The barely noticeable change to the lead makes no difference on this point. If the suggested anti-Dujić feeling in Serbia cannot be quantified, it is a very minor point and should not be given any prominence. Sorry to say this, but as it stands the article comes across as a hatchet job on Dujić. Moonraker (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)