Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 5
 | 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Year of birth
- The article says that Djurisic was born in 1909.
- According to Pajovic (already used in the article) Djurisic was born in 1907. link (Djurisic was born on 9 July 1907 in Podgorica)[translation by Antidiskriminator]
- There are other sources which support this information (i.e. link ("Pavle Djurisic (Podgorica 9 July 1907 - Jasenovac 1945)" [translated from Serbian to English by Antidiskriminator].
- I apologize if those sources are wrong but maybe it would be good to check if it is possible that article is factually incorrect regarding Djurisic's year of birth?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- it seems a little strange that Pajovic apparently uses 1907 in his 1977 book Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori but uses 1909 ten years later in his book about Djurisic. I'm sure PRODUCER would be happy to check the source, but purely on the basis of recency and specificity, I would think we would use the latter. I'm not aware of anything in English that is definitive about his date of birth. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's another work by Pajovic published in 1977. The one published later in 1985 and dedicated solely to Djurisic says "on 9 July 1909 Pavle was born there". I agree with Peacemaker that we use the latter work. He wouldn't have changed it if he thought it was correct. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Happy with that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Besides 1977 Pajovic's work and source I presented in my above comment and which supports 1907 assertion (written in 2009 by modern PhD historian specialized in this topic - Kosta Nikolic) there are more sources which support 1907 assertion (link, link, link, link).
- Are there any other sources for 1909 year of Djurisic's birth except one of the works of Radoje Pajovic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- This really is a very minor matter to which there may in fact be no definitive answer available unless the birth register of his church has been examined and an author has used it as a reference. However, seeing as we are going there, it isn't necessarily about the number of sources, we should give greater weight to quality sources that are more recent, specific to Djurisic, and reliably published. So far as I know we have a book published in 1987 by Pajovic (what are his academic qualifications, and where does/did he work?), which appears to be a multi-part book of which one part is basically a biography of Djurisic. I'm not clear about who the publishers were. It is available in full online, so we can easily verify that Pajovic says what he says, where in his book he says it, the context and what footnotes or references he might have used for it. Some or all of the others could have used Pajovic's 1977 work as the source of their information about his date of birth. I am not able to read the texts you have linked even if they were available in full, and it appears that most if not all of the ones you have linked are only available in snippet view at best. So it may prove difficult to determine where those sources you have linked got their information from. Pajovic himself may not have footnoted his source either. As I say, it will be hard to be definitive here, and we may just have to indicate that there are two possible years of birth (1907 or 1909). Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nikolic has been shown unreliable given that he is incompetent and/or with an agenda due to his political support of Chetnik rehabilitation and his falsification of historical facts i.e. his swapping of Muslim civilian and military deaths. FWIW Pajovic is a historian and professor at the University of Podgorica. I propose we add both dates citing Pajovic's 1977 work and settle this nonsense. I still stand by the fact that he wouldn't have changed the date had the he thought the prior one was correct. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- agree. I think Pajovic 1987 is the best source we have, and his year of birth should be given first, with something like (some other sources give his year of birth as...). Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree. I think that Pajovic obviously made mistake in his 1987 work. The above mentioned link with official data presents 1907 as year of Djurisic's birth. link--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also don't agree with you that this "really is a very minor matter" (diff). Instead of underestimating problems and reporting user who discovered them to WP:AE it is better to resolve them. FA should not have such big number of flaws especially not so serious factual inaccuracies related to basic information about Djurisic like:
- year of birth
- death date
- death place.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also don't agree with you that this "really is a very minor matter" (diff). Instead of underestimating problems and reporting user who discovered them to WP:AE it is better to resolve them. FA should not have such big number of flaws especially not so serious factual inaccuracies related to basic information about Djurisic like:
- I don't agree. I think that Pajovic obviously made mistake in his 1987 work. The above mentioned link with official data presents 1907 as year of Djurisic's birth. link--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- agree. I think Pajovic 1987 is the best source we have, and his year of birth should be given first, with something like (some other sources give his year of birth as...). Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nikolic has been shown unreliable given that he is incompetent and/or with an agenda due to his political support of Chetnik rehabilitation and his falsification of historical facts i.e. his swapping of Muslim civilian and military deaths. FWIW Pajovic is a historian and professor at the University of Podgorica. I propose we add both dates citing Pajovic's 1977 work and settle this nonsense. I still stand by the fact that he wouldn't have changed the date had the he thought the prior one was correct. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Happy with that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's another work by Pajovic published in 1977. The one published later in 1985 and dedicated solely to Djurisic says "on 9 July 1909 Pavle was born there". I agree with Peacemaker that we use the latter work. He wouldn't have changed it if he thought it was correct. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Look, the JUSP data is clearly a tertiary source, and it doesn't say which of the two secondary sources it is relying on. Basta is not reliable, not sure about Miletic. I put the information from JUSP out there because a. it is relevant to our discussion so it was appropriate to share it, and b. because it is based on secondary sources which we will need to look at for reliability if we are going to use it. But, it is worthwhile at least having it in the discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not propose to use JUSP to support 1907 assertion. I presented it, together with all other sources, to explain that there is probably a mistake in later work of Pajović work which you consider reliable and which is the only source with 1909 assertion presented until now. In the absence of other sources which support 1909 version and with so many sources which support 1907 assertion I think it would be wrong to stick with 1909 version just because it was published in later Pajovic's work.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we obviously have differing perspectives. My view is that we have a reliable source (a university academic, Pajovic) who published a biographical tract about Djurisic in 1987. If you are not using JUSP as a source, why bring it up? Is it your contention that numerical superiority of sources outweighs reliability, and so Pajovic must have made a mistake because he is outnumbered, regardless of the reliability of the sources? I don't follow that logic at all, and actually think the reverse is much more likely. Pajovic is more likely to have corrected a mistake he made in 1977 than got it right in 1977 and made a mistake in 1987. The sources you have provided have Djurisic's year of birth in footnotes or as an aside, whereas Pajovic wrote a biographical chapter on Djurisic. You would expect an academic writing a biographical piece on the man to have done his fact checking. At best the matter remains unclear. I believe it is inappropriate to indicate that one of the two options is 100% correct in these circumstances. I also have no idea which of the sources you are using are in your opinion reliable. Could you clarify that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- If JUSP really based its database on data presented by official statistic institute with other sources used for verification, the list published by JUSP is not tertiary but primary source. I already explained why I brought it up. To explain there is probably a mistake in later work of Pajović work since an official government primary source gives different data.
- Could you please clarify something I asked six days ago. Are there any other sources for 1909 year of Djurisic's birth except one of the works of Radoje Pajovic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not that I am aware of. And in response to your next repeated question, I don't think it should be changed on the basis of numerical superiority of sources. I will not explain my position yet again. I believe the article reflects the lack of clarity about the year of his birth and leans to Pajovic in the lead and infobox for good reasons. I do not believe we will achieve consensus on this issue and suggest you either take it to dispute resolution or drop it. I do not believe further discussion is warranted unless you are willing to discuss the reliability for the sources you are using. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Before I follow the instructions of dispute resolution policy I would like to clarify if you understood my position, if you don't mind. The basis for my position is not only a numerical superiority of the sources but also an important source — the official data of government's statistics institute used by JUSP for 1907 assertion. Official government's statistics institute uses official records. Don't you agree that this source gives more weight to 1907 assertion, regardless of the numerical superiority of its sources?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mind. I believe I understand your position. Tertiary or primary, I still believe the sources you have used do not trump Pajovic for reliability to the extent that we should only use the year of birth that your sources use, and make the huge assumption that Pajovic made a mistake ten years after he got it right (which is essentially your contention) rather than the other way round. I still believe it is not so black and white as you appear to think it is. If you believe that the current text of the article in this respect is a matter for dispute resolution, please go ahead. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we obviously have differing perspectives. My view is that we have a reliable source (a university academic, Pajovic) who published a biographical tract about Djurisic in 1987. If you are not using JUSP as a source, why bring it up? Is it your contention that numerical superiority of sources outweighs reliability, and so Pajovic must have made a mistake because he is outnumbered, regardless of the reliability of the sources? I don't follow that logic at all, and actually think the reverse is much more likely. Pajovic is more likely to have corrected a mistake he made in 1977 than got it right in 1977 and made a mistake in 1987. The sources you have provided have Djurisic's year of birth in footnotes or as an aside, whereas Pajovic wrote a biographical chapter on Djurisic. You would expect an academic writing a biographical piece on the man to have done his fact checking. At best the matter remains unclear. I believe it is inappropriate to indicate that one of the two options is 100% correct in these circumstances. I also have no idea which of the sources you are using are in your opinion reliable. Could you clarify that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Ending discussions about non-resolved issues by collapsing them
Peacemaker67 ended several discussions about non-resolved issues using Template:Collapse. I think this might be wrong and unconstructive so I invite Peacemaker67 to consider reverting himself because this template should "never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- The discussions are not ended, they are collapsed. In some cases it is impossible for other editors to know if you are finally satisfied with the discussion and/or edits in the article. If you think I have collapsed a section unreasonably (which in some cases is after more than three weeks with no response to a reasonable and straightforward query), then you uncollapse them yourself. This talkpage is horrifically long and TLDR as it is, even with regular archiving. It's no wonder no-one else but you, PRODUCER and I (plus Director occasionally) ever comments here. That's all I have to say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think we would all be better off if we refrained from using the "collapse", "resolved", and "tick" templates and instead just let the damn archive bot do its job. Every time someone edits an old section it delays the archiving of that section and effectively causes more harm than good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration above mentioned explanation at Template:Collapse ("never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.") and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages ("If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.") I would appreciate if Peacemaker67 would revert himself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You'll have to get used to disappointment then. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- ok. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- You'll have to get used to disappointment then. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration above mentioned explanation at Template:Collapse ("never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.") and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages ("If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.") I would appreciate if Peacemaker67 would revert himself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think we would all be better off if we refrained from using the "collapse", "resolved", and "tick" templates and instead just let the damn archive bot do its job. Every time someone edits an old section it delays the archiving of that section and effectively causes more harm than good. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When was the monument in Libertyville, Illinois constructed?
When was the monument in Libertyville, Illinois constructed? The article doesn't say, and I think it would be easier to follow along if this was included in the article. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the Mihailovic one was put up in 1985, but I can't find a reference for Djurisic's one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- This link [1] is to a photo of the memorial, but I can't make out if the monument has a date on it. Interestingly, it also uses the 1907 year of birth. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Non-Germans receiving the Iron Cross
Hi all, I'm afraid the contention that this fella was the only non-German to receive the EKII is farcical. Many non-Germans were awarded the EKII, and the contention that this chap was the only one reveals a distinct lack of interest in research by the author of the source used. Dozens of reliable sources could be used to refute this claim. I have reverted it on the basis of WP:BLUE, but am happy to produce references if my assertion is challenged. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Say where you read it and Citation overkill
One assertion is connected with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and citation overkill issues. This has already been discussed before (link to the previous discussion).
I resolved a part of the issue by pointing to the actual source (diff which pointed to Cohen as actual source), but the issue remains not completely resolved. Suggestions how to resolve this issue would be appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is a section of an essay with instructions how to trim excessive citations. It recommends to:
- "trim out those less-reputable sources"
- "choose the one or ones that seem to be the best combination of eminent, balanced, and current".
- "If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- As said before, the assertion was strenuously challenged in a number of fora, and the citation farm regarding the Iron Cross is justified on that basis. The article passed FAC with the citation farm and I believe that is the end of the matter. I do not propose to reduce the citation farm and will oppose any attempt to do so. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It is actually the opposite. The article did not pass FAC with citation overkill issue. This is the version which passed FAC review and it had one citation to Cohen and one citation to primary source in the note. You refuted your position yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, as you rightly point out, this occurred after the FAC process. However, it was in direct response to the disruptive behaviour you displayed on this talk page. Regardless, the Iron Cross matter was central to your ban for disruptive behaviour (which I note has just been lifted, I have protested this with User:EdJohnston). Not that you have any obligation to do so, but it was good of you to tell us you were doing that, I would have made submissions against it had I been aware of it. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion, as all of the citations in the farm are germane to the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class to Djurisic, and your recent edits were not only factually incorrect, they would have been misleading to the casual reader. This is not surprising given your prior history on this issue. You failed to accept the consensus then, and I have a feeling you won't accept it now. That was why you were banned from this article via ARBMAC, and with respect to the admins involved in lifting your ban, it is why you should still be banned from it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your feeling is wrong. Please AGF. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ad, no reasonable editor on WP is going to expect me or anyone else that was involved in the discussion that led to your ban from this article to AGF with you about this issue. You have one aim, and one aim only, to get rid of the reference to Djurisic's award of the Iron Cross. That was made clear in the preceding discussion, and you have already made two erroneous edits to the citations that are in the article in this respect. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your feeling is wrong. Please AGF. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies, as you rightly point out, this occurred after the FAC process. However, it was in direct response to the disruptive behaviour you displayed on this talk page. Regardless, the Iron Cross matter was central to your ban for disruptive behaviour (which I note has just been lifted, I have protested this with User:EdJohnston). Not that you have any obligation to do so, but it was good of you to tell us you were doing that, I would have made submissions against it had I been aware of it. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion, as all of the citations in the farm are germane to the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class to Djurisic, and your recent edits were not only factually incorrect, they would have been misleading to the casual reader. This is not surprising given your prior history on this issue. You failed to accept the consensus then, and I have a feeling you won't accept it now. That was why you were banned from this article via ARBMAC, and with respect to the admins involved in lifting your ban, it is why you should still be banned from it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It is actually the opposite. The article did not pass FAC with citation overkill issue. This is the version which passed FAC review and it had one citation to Cohen and one citation to primary source in the note. You refuted your position yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Incomplete list of battles in the infobox
ResolvedThe list of battles in infobox did not present Uprising in Montenegro. I added it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The policy of mass terror pursued by the Partisans as reason for split between Partisans and
This article does not meet FA criteria because it neglects a major fact which is necessary to place the subject in appropriate context. The policy of mass terror pursued by the Partisans during the Uprising in Montenegro is very important because:
- it presents the context of the events and
- explains one of the main reasons for split between Đurišić and Partisans in 1941.
This policy of mass terror pursued by the Partisans during the Uprising in Montenegro is emphasized in many sources including those writen by Tomasevic and Pavlovic which are already used in the article. Without presenting this important information readers of the article could be mislead about the real reasons for split with Partisans and context of Chetnik cooperation with Italians. This issue was already discussed before, but it was not completely resolved. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ad, I've really missed you while I've been on wikibreak. Your regular attacks on this article because it does not present the "facts" you like, and presents facts you find unpalatable, is incredibly transparent. You tried to impede this article's promotion and you continue to attack it. Present your quotes backing up your currently unsourced assertions here. I have copies of both texts and will gladly check your "interpretation" against the actual sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not want to save this. Sorry, though I don't see any particular reason for your unnecessary harsh comment here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Wikilinks I added in the diff you presented are related to Uprising in Montenegro, not to the policy of mass terror pursued by the Partisans. I don't see any particular reason for your unnecessary harsh comment here taking in consideration I struckout my comment and explained that I did not have intention to save it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
When Đurišić became a Chetnik?
ResolvedThe sentence cited by Milazzo says:
"In October 1941, Draža Mihailović, a prominent Chetnik leader later supported by the Yugoslav government-in-exile, appointed Đurišić as the commander of all regular and reserve troops in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak."
On the other hand Tomasevich in his 1975 work "The Chetniks" (pages 209-210) says that Djurisic was dispatched to Serbia at the end of November 1941 and that Mihailovic appointed him as commander of Chetnik forces in Montenegro during that visit.
I don't have approach to the cited part of the work of Milazzo so I propose this information to be doublechecked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. It was 20 December 1941, not October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop using the tick thingo. It is very irritating and gives people the erroneous impression that you are the final arbiter over whether an issue has been addressed. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It is completely the opposite. I follow instructions at Template:Resolved and put resolved tag only after your confirmation that issue has been addressed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not incorrect. I've already stated it is addressed, the tick is superfluous and an indication of your attitude to comments you make (ie they are not resolved until you say so). If you don't think it is addressed, you make another comment. Anyone can tell by reading the last comment whether the issue has been addressed or not. Please stop it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. My addition of the resolved tag could not "give people the erroneous impression that I am the final arbiter over whether an issue has been addressed" because I added it (diff) after your comment: "Done. It was 20 December 1941, not October. Thanks." which was last in this discussion at that moment. It is actually your comment ("Done.") that could give correct impression that you were the final arbiter over whether an issue has been addressed. I don't see any problem with it.
- Why did you repeat "plese stop" although I did not add resolved tag in the meantime nor I stated I am going to do it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly you are not going to stop using the tick despite the fact that I have asked you to do so. I am not going to waste more of my time trying to explain such a simple thing to you when you clearly refuse to accept that your behaviour is WP:OWN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not incorrect. I've already stated it is addressed, the tick is superfluous and an indication of your attitude to comments you make (ie they are not resolved until you say so). If you don't think it is addressed, you make another comment. Anyone can tell by reading the last comment whether the issue has been addressed or not. Please stop it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. It is completely the opposite. I follow instructions at Template:Resolved and put resolved tag only after your confirmation that issue has been addressed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop using the tick thingo. It is very irritating and gives people the erroneous impression that you are the final arbiter over whether an issue has been addressed. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Subsection
A large portion of the text (first three paragraphs) in the subsection titled "Collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro" is not related to the collaboration with Italians. This text is about Đurišić becaming a Chetnik commander, instructions he received on that occasion and his inability to "to develop an effective strategy against the Italians or Partisans in the first few months after his return to Montenegro" "despite his possession of these instructions".
I see two possibilities to resolve this minor issue:
- to move this text to the above section which describes activities against Italians or
- to rename this subsection to better describe its content.
I think moving would be better than renaming. Thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Move it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Done
militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije
Resolved"militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije"
This is violation of WP:NPA WP:NPOV and probably even BLP.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect:
- WP:NPA applies to interaction between editors
- The term "militant" was in the original BBC article
- His personal extremist views are well documented
- This is unnecessarily harsh interpretation of an irrelevant policy. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Corrected NPA to NPOV. BBC is not an author. It is a British public service broadcasting statutory corporation that publishes text written by individual authors. The article about Đurišić should not be misused to throw mud on living people. Will you please be so kind to present full quote from BBC article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly how is it not "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I see no other sources... Are there reliable sources that have other views of the "Montenegrin wing led by Metropolitan Amfilohije"? Please produce them so that we can address your concerns. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- No doubt that you know that misusing this article to present Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral as militant wing of Serbian Orthodox Church and implying that it is because it is led by Amfilohije Radovic is blatant violation of NPOV and probably BLP. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what you think "no doubt" means, but as Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think it means what you think it means". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- No doubt means there is no doubt that you overlooked the first word of the quote "militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije" and asked me about "other views of the "Montenegrin wing led by Metropolitan Amfilohije"?" Based on your Montoya comment, I can not see any other reason for your "overlook" than to ridicule me and my position. Anyway, this is my last comment in this discussion about Serbian Orthodox Church and its "militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije". All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear, one more black mark against me. Be sure to write that up in your "List of bad things PM67 did to me". You just don't understand English well comprehension enough, Ad. It is a real shame, because if you did, you might make a significant contribution to this and other articles. But alas. збогом... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- No doubt means there is no doubt that you overlooked the first word of the quote "militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije" and asked me about "other views of the "Montenegrin wing led by Metropolitan Amfilohije"?" Based on your Montoya comment, I can not see any other reason for your "overlook" than to ridicule me and my position. Anyway, this is my last comment in this discussion about Serbian Orthodox Church and its "militant Montenegrin wing which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije". All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what you think "no doubt" means, but as Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think it means what you think it means". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- No doubt that you know that misusing this article to present Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral as militant wing of Serbian Orthodox Church and implying that it is because it is led by Amfilohije Radovic is blatant violation of NPOV and probably BLP. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly how is it not "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I see no other sources... Are there reliable sources that have other views of the "Montenegrin wing led by Metropolitan Amfilohije"? Please produce them so that we can address your concerns. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Corrected NPA to NPOV. BBC is not an author. It is a British public service broadcasting statutory corporation that publishes text written by individual authors. The article about Đurišić should not be misused to throw mud on living people. Will you please be so kind to present full quote from BBC article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Charged Language
Some parts of the article use very charged and non-objective language. An example would be "The killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog was an act of mass terror and brutal political surgery similar to those carried out by the Chetniks themselves earlier in the war." Should probably be reviewed and rewritten in more objective and impartial language. 70.31.175.114 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The phrase mentioned is actually a quote from Tomasevich, I am not sure what happened there. Attributed in-line, closely cited and placed in quotations. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You misinterpreted the source. Tomasevich does not refer only to killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks, but to "the annihilation of most quisling forces". He also continues "similar to that practiced by the Ustashas and the Chetniks."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't misinterpret the source, that is what he says in the book, but the subject of the sentence in this article is the elimination of Djurisic's Montenegrin Chetniks, not Ustase. Context. Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you did misinterpret source. Tomasevich speaks about "the annihilation of most quisling forces". Not about Montenegrin Chetniks. In his work he frequently mentioned quisling forces as separated from Chetniks. On the other hand he does mention mass terror and brutal political surgery as connected to Ustashe too. Without this connection his words (that are attributed to him) are additionally misinterpreted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you have failed to read the couple of pages there in context. At the top of p.766, Tomasevich says "the brutal conclusion of the civil war is understandable if one remembers that all the quisling forces and the Chetniks cooperated during most or all of the war with the enemy...", and "If the outcome of the war had been the opposite, with the quisling forces on the winning, and the Partisans on the losing side, the same thing would have happened to the remnants of the Partisan forces", and "the harsh treatment of the defeated forces", "all those that cooperated with the Axis powers", and "destroyed as many of its adversaries as possible". He then talks about the Ustase and Chetnik infiltration after the war. THEN he makes the statement about the "annihilation of quisling forces", and compares it to the actions of the Ustase and Chetniks earlier in the war. Understanding context and English comprehension is critical here. He doesn't need to say "quisling forces and Chetniks on the winning side", or "the defeated forces, including the Chetniks", or "all those that cooperated with the Axis powers, including the Chetniks" or "destroyed as many of its adversaries as possible, including Chetniks" in order for us to known what he is talking about. If you don't believe me, RfC it. I'm sick of trying to explain English comprehension to you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think that your comment additionally prove that you misinterpreted Tomasevich, because you showed that he treats Chetniks and quisling separately. Here is simple comparison
- I'm afraid you have failed to read the couple of pages there in context. At the top of p.766, Tomasevich says "the brutal conclusion of the civil war is understandable if one remembers that all the quisling forces and the Chetniks cooperated during most or all of the war with the enemy...", and "If the outcome of the war had been the opposite, with the quisling forces on the winning, and the Partisans on the losing side, the same thing would have happened to the remnants of the Partisan forces", and "the harsh treatment of the defeated forces", "all those that cooperated with the Axis powers", and "destroyed as many of its adversaries as possible". He then talks about the Ustase and Chetnik infiltration after the war. THEN he makes the statement about the "annihilation of quisling forces", and compares it to the actions of the Ustase and Chetniks earlier in the war. Understanding context and English comprehension is critical here. He doesn't need to say "quisling forces and Chetniks on the winning side", or "the defeated forces, including the Chetniks", or "all those that cooperated with the Axis powers, including the Chetniks" or "destroyed as many of its adversaries as possible, including Chetniks" in order for us to known what he is talking about. If you don't believe me, RfC it. I'm sick of trying to explain English comprehension to you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you did misinterpret source. Tomasevich speaks about "the annihilation of most quisling forces". Not about Montenegrin Chetniks. In his work he frequently mentioned quisling forces as separated from Chetniks. On the other hand he does mention mass terror and brutal political surgery as connected to Ustashe too. Without this connection his words (that are attributed to him) are additionally misinterpreted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't misinterpret the source, that is what he says in the book, but the subject of the sentence in this article is the elimination of Djurisic's Montenegrin Chetniks, not Ustase. Context. Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You misinterpreted the source. Tomasevich does not refer only to killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks, but to "the annihilation of most quisling forces". He also continues "similar to that practiced by the Ustashas and the Chetniks."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
| Article | Source |
|---|---|
| the killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog | "the annihilation of most quisling forces" |
| similar to those carried out by the Chetniks themselves earlier in the war. | "similar to that practiced by the Ustashas and the Chetniks" |
- You are free to disagree with me, but it is not appropriate to refer to my position as rubbish (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Textbook cherry-picking, no context. You just don't understand English well enough, Ad. As I've already said, if you really think you have a case, RfC it. Please. If not, I see no reason to waste any more time trying to explain it to you. You not only don't get it, you don't seem to want to get it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to disagree with me, but it is not appropriate to refer to my position as rubbish (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Commands held + ranks
Template:Infobox military person says:
- commands – optional – for persons who are notable as commanding officers, the units they commanded. Dates should be given if multiple notable commands were held.
The infobox does not follow this:
- It does not present units, but general name of formations.
- It is factually incorrect because Serbian Volunteer Corps formation was not commanded by Đurišić, maybe some of its military units (i.e. Montenegrin Volunteer Corps), but not the whole corps like infobox says
- Dates are not given although multiple commands were held
The same template also says:
- In cases where the person held different ranks in different armies, multiple ranks should be specified with dates and country noted for each.
This request was not followed here.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- First, it's "optional", so an editor can opt not to do it, pursuant to WP:IAR. Second, he was the assistant commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, which could possibly be construed as a command, but maybe not. Infoboxes are often stuffed with too much detail that just isn't necessary or even helpful, so I personally prefer to keep them as tidy as possible. All the information in the infobox should be in the body. If you have more information about his commands and dates, add them to the body with citations to RS. If you want to suggest changes to the infobox, why don't you make the suggestion here, or even boldly edit it and see if the community accepts that your edit is useful? It's an option we all have. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Optional means that inclusion of that parameter into infobox is optional. It does not mean factually incorrect, unclear or misleading. Especially in case of articles that are FA-class rated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- How is any of the information factually incorrect? Unclear? Or misleading? He was a commander of the Chetnik movement in Montenegro, had a command role in the Serbian Volunteer Corps and commanded the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Do you deny any of that? For clarity, it could be pointed out that he was only the Assistant Commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, but that really is unnecessary, because the detail is covered in the body, and he did have a command position. --Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Optional means that inclusion of that parameter into infobox is optional. It does not mean factually incorrect, unclear or misleading. Especially in case of articles that are FA-class rated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"He was a commander of the Chetnik movement in Montenegro"? Please find below what article says about his command posts and please be so kind to point to the period in which Đurišić was a commander of the Chetnik movement in Montenegro:
- 1930 - 1934: infantry lieutenant in the 10th Infantry Regiment in Sarajevo
- 1934 - 1939: a platoon commander and later a commander of the first company of the 48th Infantry Regiment in Berane
- 7 April 1939 - April 1941: Intelligence officer responsible for Albania, Plav
- 13 July 1941 - August 1941: Communist party of Montenegro
- 20 December 1941 - 14 May 1943 : Commander of Chetniks in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak
- 14 May 1943 - November 1943: In German prison
- November 1943 - Spring of 1944: assistant to the commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps
- Spring of 1944 -Beginning of 1945: Montenegrin Volunteer Corps
- Beginning of 1945 - April 1945: Bosnia - the Chetnik 8th Montenegrin Army, consisting of the 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th (Herzegovina) divisions, together with Zaharije Ostojić and Petar Baćović
- April 1945 - the "Montenegrin National Army" subordinated to Sekula Drljević
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- 20 December 1941 - 14 May 1943. Not THE commander, A commander. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize if I don't understand this correctly, but as per my first comment in this section, the template documentation says: "the units they commanded". He did not command Chetnik movement in Montenegro. He commanded Chetniks only in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Semantics. "Units" vary widely in nature, we are only talking about notable ones anyway, and we are talking about guerillas here (not always strictly organised into formal units fitting the usual nomenclature. Would you prefer it was amended to "Chetnik groups in Montenegro" or something? Surely you are not suggesting we put "Chetniks in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak" in the infobox? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I clearly explained that fields in the infobox about Djurisic's ranks and units that he commanded:
- do not follow Template:Infobox military person and
- contain factually incorrect, unclear and misleading data, such as information that Chetnik movement in Montenegro was under Đurišić's command.
- I, of course, don't suggest that. You are free not to agree with my review of the article, but please be so kind to stop with your attempts to ridicule my position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- so he wasn't a commander of Chetniks in Montenegro? Is that what you're saying? Because I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Why don't you edit the infobox to demonstrate what it is you are on about, then we can discuss it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I edited infobox and added a tag after assertion which contradicts to what article says about military units under Djurisic's command. Your requirement for discussion is met.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah no, you just tagged the information, you didn't edit it to show what you thought should be there. Having to guess what you are on about every time you raise something is extremely tiresome. I have substituted the Lim-Sandzak detachment. Next time, try to be more specific about what it is you want. If you're not happy with my substitution, then edit the infobox (not tag it) to show what you believe should be there. I'm sick of the passive-aggressive approach you take to these matters. Stop complaining and edit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I added a clear explanation. Both here and with my edit "The text of the article does not say that Chetnik movement in Montenegro was under Đurišić's command" (diff). With your last edit one of above listed issues has been resolved. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah no, you just tagged the information, you didn't edit it to show what you thought should be there. Having to guess what you are on about every time you raise something is extremely tiresome. I have substituted the Lim-Sandzak detachment. Next time, try to be more specific about what it is you want. If you're not happy with my substitution, then edit the infobox (not tag it) to show what you believe should be there. I'm sick of the passive-aggressive approach you take to these matters. Stop complaining and edit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I edited infobox and added a tag after assertion which contradicts to what article says about military units under Djurisic's command. Your requirement for discussion is met.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- so he wasn't a commander of Chetniks in Montenegro? Is that what you're saying? Because I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Why don't you edit the infobox to demonstrate what it is you are on about, then we can discuss it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I clearly explained that fields in the infobox about Djurisic's ranks and units that he commanded:
- Semantics. "Units" vary widely in nature, we are only talking about notable ones anyway, and we are talking about guerillas here (not always strictly organised into formal units fitting the usual nomenclature. Would you prefer it was amended to "Chetnik groups in Montenegro" or something? Surely you are not suggesting we put "Chetniks in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak" in the infobox? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize if I don't understand this correctly, but as per my first comment in this section, the template documentation says: "the units they commanded". He did not command Chetnik movement in Montenegro. He commanded Chetniks only in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
whatever. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I am glad I was able to help. Additionally, the article says that, based on agreement signed with Drljevic, Đurišić was military commander of Montenegrin National Army. This command post is not presented in the infobox.
- The date of signing this agreement (22 March 1945, says Pajovic, p. 96 and many other sources) should be added to the article in order to present important information to the readers.( --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- In English, you say "you are welcome" when someone thanks you. Saying it in other circumstances could be considered rude. I don't agree with your opinion of the so-called "importance" of this information, but you go right ahead and add it to the text and the infobox. When I see what you have done, I'll respond if I think it is necessary, and we can discuss. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. You are welcome is not rude. Whatever is. link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, English is clearly NOT your native tongue. It is mine. Your response just shows how little you understand English. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You may want to remove the "tick" above. I have removed the Montenegrin National Army from the infobox as it is not clear that he actually took up that command. The details of the agreement are not known (according to Tomasevich, the source in the article), so while there may have been a safe-conduct agreement that included a provision that Djurisic would take up the role, the article says he did not in fact follow the agreement, cross the river and join Drljevic, but instead tried to outsmart Drljevic and the NDH forces by keeping his fighting forces south of the river. Given that a few weeks later, Drljevic was apparently involved in setting a trap for Djurisic and some of Djurisic's forces deserted to Drljevic, they could hardly have been operating any sort of unified command as envisaged in the agreement. I see that there are other sources (not used in this article) you have used for the Montenegrin National Army article. Do any of them shed any further light on the date the agreement was signed, or what Djurisic did following the signing of the agreement? I am keen to resolve this issue one way or the other. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have also removed Case Black, as it is clear from Tomasevich that Djurisic was captured on 14 May and Case Black commenced on 17 May. He clearly cannot have been involved in Case Black if he was in German custody at the time it commenced. I have reverted Ad's reversion. This is just WP:BLUE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Muslim self-protection militia
The article says:
"On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia"
I investigated sources but could not find any Muslim self-protection militia in this region in January 1943. Is it possible to present some additional details about this Muslim self-protection militia that was attacked by Đurišić in January 1943? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just found a source (Dedijer/Miletić) which says that the Muslim self-protection militia was actually Moslem Militia so I will wikilink it. It would be maybe good to present some background about this unit and its relation with Đurišić's Chetniks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @PRODUCER: I noticed you insisted on piped link (diff) which includes "self-protection" term within the title of Moslem Militia. Will you please be so kind to present a quote from page 258-259 of Tomasevich work with "self-protection" part of name of this militia? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Original quote is available on the Chetniks article: "thirty-three Muslim villages had been burned down, and 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children had been killed, as against 14 Chetnik dead and 26 wounded." What do Dedijer/Miletić say? What are your reasons for removing "self-protection"? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @PRODUCER: Will you please be so kind to present a quote from page 258-259 of Tomasevich work, not another article, with "self-protection" part of name of this militia? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Its impoortant to mention tha they were supported by the Italians... FkpCascais (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is and it does... --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed the spot... sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- To change "Muslim self-protection militia" to "Moslem militia" then link that term to that article is WP:OR. Nowhere I can see does Tomasevich (who is the only source used there) say this "Muslim self-protection militia" was the "Moslem militia" he mentions elsewhere in The Chetniks. Please do not introduce OR into this article. If you have a reliable source that says that this "Muslim self-protection militia" was the "Moslem militia" you have created an article for, please cite it in the article (when you edit it). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I pointed to the source before I removed "self-protection" and linked this unit to Muslim militia. Here is the full quote:
- Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 383.
... izvještaju od 10. januara, spaljena su 33 muslimanska sela, ubijeno je 400 muslimanskih boraca (članova tzv. Muslimanske milicije koju su pomagali Talijani) i oko 1.000 žena i djece, nasuprot 14 mrtvih i 26 ranjenih četnika ...[... report of 10 January, 33 muslim villages burned, 400 muslim fighter killed (members of so called Muslim militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children, contrary to 14 killed and 26 wounded Chetniks...]
- Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 383.
- In the absence of the reliable source, it is addition of "self-protection" (originally added by PRODUCER almost four years ago (diff)) which is WP:OR, not its removal. A month later he added the same text to Chetniks article (diff) and now he presented Chetniks article as source for "self-protection" term, although I politely asked him to present a quote from source, not from another article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it is a verbatim quote from p.258 of Tomasevich 1975, but I will have to check my copy, as I don't have Google Books access to that page. The Dedijer quote does not say this was the same militia unit that is the subject of the article you created, so my point about that stands, and in any case you did not even add that citation when you made the edit. I will look at the book and let you know. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Another unjustified accusation. You accused me for WP:OR although I presented a source for my position (and used it, together with a quote (diff), to expand corresponding article which you have on your watchlist). No doubt that you know that WP:OR "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".
- I look forward for your presentation of the quote from page 258-259 of Tomasevich work with "self-protection" part of name of this militia. I hope it will not last as long as your verification of Pavlowitch at Uprising in Montenegro (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it is a verbatim quote from p.258 of Tomasevich 1975, but I will have to check my copy, as I don't have Google Books access to that page. The Dedijer quote does not say this was the same militia unit that is the subject of the article you created, so my point about that stands, and in any case you did not even add that citation when you made the edit. I will look at the book and let you know. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I pointed to the source before I removed "self-protection" and linked this unit to Muslim militia. Here is the full quote:
- To change "Muslim self-protection militia" to "Moslem militia" then link that term to that article is WP:OR. Nowhere I can see does Tomasevich (who is the only source used there) say this "Muslim self-protection militia" was the "Moslem militia" he mentions elsewhere in The Chetniks. Please do not introduce OR into this article. If you have a reliable source that says that this "Muslim self-protection militia" was the "Moslem militia" you have created an article for, please cite it in the article (when you edit it). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed the spot... sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is and it does... --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Original quote is available on the Chetniks article: "thirty-three Muslim villages had been burned down, and 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children had been killed, as against 14 Chetnik dead and 26 wounded." What do Dedijer/Miletić say? What are your reasons for removing "self-protection"? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @PRODUCER: I noticed you insisted on piped link (diff) which includes "self-protection" term within the title of Moslem Militia. Will you please be so kind to present a quote from page 258-259 of Tomasevich work with "self-protection" part of name of this militia? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The snarky aside is unnecessary. You did not use the citation on this article when you made the edit, which is clearly the subject of this discussion string. The quote is from p.258 of Tomasevich 1975 (about two-thirds of the way down) exactly as PRODUCER stated. "According to Djurisic's report of January 10, thirty-three Moslem villages had been burned down, and 400 Moslem fighters (members of the Moslem self-protection militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children had been killed, as against 14 Chetnik dead and 26 wounded.". As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your WP:OR accusation is unjustified. I pointed to the source written by Dedijer/Miletić within this discussion. If you wanted the quote, you should have requested it instead of making another unjustified accusation against me.
- This matter is not closed. PRODUCER removed link to Moslem Militia although I presented a source to support it. If there was another Moslem self-protection militia which was not Moslem militia, then it is necessary to present some sources for this position and some additional details about this Muslim self-protection militia that was attacked by Đurišić in January 1943, as per my first comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- You presented no evidence that support such a wikilink. You see a general "Muslim militia" description and immediately assume that they are all one and the same. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- In his later work (1979) on page 254 Tomasevich uses exactly the same term as Dedijer/Miletić (članova tzv. Muslimanske milicije koju su pomagali Talijani - link) without self-protection.
- The article I wikilinked is about all detachments of Muslim militia in Sandžak. Unless you present a source that there was some other Moslem militia in Sandžak in January 1943, which was not Moslem militia, I will restore wikilink to Moslem militia and remove self-protection part of the name. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you do, I will revert it and report you (again) for disruptive and tendentious editing. Here you claim that article you created is about all Moslem militia in Sandjak, yet there you say it is a specific unit. What makes you think all the Moslem militia in every village was under some all-encompassing direction? "Moslem Militia/militia" is as generic and vague a title as you can get. You can't have it both ways. Dedijer does not say it was the same militia as the one in your article, and in fact he calls it "Moslem militia" not "Moslem Militia". This is en WP, so the English version of the book must take precedence. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- "What makes you think all the Moslem militia in every village was under some all-encompassing direction?" - The sources, including Tomasevich, say they were. In the period in question they were under Italian control.
- he calls it "Moslem militia" not "Moslem Militia" - good point. Renamed, though capitalization of M is not of great significance here.
- Later version of the book which is also supported by other RS takes precedence in determining the name of this unit, regardless of the language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- We prefer English sources on en WP, and you have brought nothing forward to indicate that the 1979 work is revised. The Serbo-Croat translation, in fact, appears to me to say that the militia "helped the Italians", not that they were "supported by the Italians". Regardless, so far as I am aware, the book was published once in 1975 in English, and had no revisions. The Serbo-Croat version cannot trump the English one on en WP. Your contention about it being the same militia as that in the article you created is utterly unsupported. As I said, the matter is closed as far as I am concerned. Clearly PRODUCER and I agree that "self-protection" (which appears in Tomasevich 1975) should remain in the article and your link to your entirely generically-named Moslem militia is not appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you do, I will revert it and report you (again) for disruptive and tendentious editing. Here you claim that article you created is about all Moslem militia in Sandjak, yet there you say it is a specific unit. What makes you think all the Moslem militia in every village was under some all-encompassing direction? "Moslem Militia/militia" is as generic and vague a title as you can get. You can't have it both ways. Dedijer does not say it was the same militia as the one in your article, and in fact he calls it "Moslem militia" not "Moslem Militia". This is en WP, so the English version of the book must take precedence. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- You presented no evidence that support such a wikilink. You see a general "Muslim militia" description and immediately assume that they are all one and the same. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. On wikipedia more recent sources are preferred.
- "Moslem militia" is supported by Tomasevich's later work and by work of Dedijer/Miletić that was written 15 years after earlier edition of Tomasevich.
- I researched sources I could find on this topic, and none of sources I found use "self-protection" title of militiamen killed by Đurišić Chetniks. On the contrary, many more recent sources use term Moslem militia:
- Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 383.
... izvještaju od 10. januara, spaljena su 33 muslimanska sela, ubijeno je 400 muslimanskih boraca (članova tzv. Muslimanske milicije koju su pomagali Talijani) i oko 1.000 žena i djece, nasuprot 14 mrtvih i 26 ranjenih četnika ...[... report of 10 January, 33 muslim villages burned, 400 muslim fighter killed (members of so called Muslim militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children, contrary to 14 killed and 26 wounded Chetniks...]
- Bandžović, Safet (1991). Iseljavanje Muslimana iz Sandžaka. Biblioteka Ključanin. p. 81.
...u izvještaju Draži Mihailoviću predočio da je ubijeno oko 400 pripadnika Muslimanske milicije i oko 1.000 žena i djece.
- Hamović, Miloš (1994). Izbjeglištvo u Bosni i Hercegovini: 1941-1945. Filip Višnjić. p. 85.
...бјелопољском крају, поред убијених 400 припадника муслиманске милиције ликвидирали око 1.000 Муслимана
- Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 383.
- There are dozens of sources (available on request) that does not use "self-protection" nor "militia" but only explain they were Moslem fighters.
- Your Serbo-Croat translation of helped/supported is incorrect.
Conclusion: I refuted every point of "self-protection" position here which is supported only by one earlier Tomašević work, while it is opposed by later work of Tomašević and three other more recent works that directly support "Moslem militia" and dozens of other sources which only mention Moslem fighters.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Why Đurišić attacked Muslim militia and Muslims in Sandžak and Eastern Bosnia
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
I tried to find some additional details about this Muslim self-protection militia that was attacked by Đurišić in January 1943, as per my first comment. The more I investigated this matter, the more NPOV issues of this article I discovered.
Pajović presents detailed explaination why Đurišić attacked Muslim militia and Muslims in Sandžak and Eastern Bosnia in 1943 (p. 57):
- Massacres of Serbs committed by Muslims and "self-protection" Moslem militia (that culminated with attacks on Buđevo and other villages in Sjenica in December 1942)
- Informations that Muslims intended to expel Serbs who lived on the territory at the right bank of Lim, Pljevlja, Čajniče and Foča.
This view is supported by many other sources, including Sedlar and Lampe (who refers to actions of Đurišić as "raids of revenge"). Although Pajović is a source that is already extensively used in the article, somehow this information is overlooked and not presented in the text of the article. Instead the article presents only Tomasevich's speculations ("all circumstances point") that those events of 1943 were "Đurišić's partial achievement of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941" (although authenticity of this instructions is disputed), while two main contributors decided to struggle to preserve deceptive "self-protection" term in the name of Moslem militia.
In order to follow WP:NPOV it is necessary to:
- present explaination why Đurišić attacked Muslims in Montenegro and Eastern Bosnia not (only) with Tomasevich's speculations, but with above explanation supported by Pajović, Sedlar and Lampe.
- remove deceptive "self-protection" term in the name of Moslem militia--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I have noted time and again, I will not discuss matters with you unless you edit in article space. So WP:BRD. If I or any other editor disagrees with your edit, they will no doubt R, and then D, in accordance with policy.
- The term "self-protection" is a direct quote from the only edition (I am aware of) of Tomasevich 1975 in English. The book you are using is a translation (so far as I am aware) of the original book published by Stanford University Press in 1975. Under no circumstances should a non-English translation of an English book take precedence over an English one, not on en WP anyway. It is the English one that has been widely reviewed and praised, not the Serbo-Croat one, or the one in any other languages it may have been translated into. Do you have a reliable source that says that Tomasevich's description of the militia as "self-protection" is "deceptive"? You haven't produced one. That is what he says, and that is what goes in the article, not some reductionist version that suits the point of view of an individual editor. It appears that you will not listen or comprehend policy. As a result, I will not be discussing this matter further, your edit has been reverted and the explanation is in accordance with WP policy. Further attempts to re-introduce this into the article will be reverted and reported as disruptive and tendentious editing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Djurisic wounded
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
Hermann Neubacher says that Đurišić was wounded:
- Neubacher, Hermann; Živković, Nikola (2008). Specijalni zadatak Balkan. More. p. 176.
Uskoro je nastala legenda da ga metak neće, odnosno da je neranjiv, što mu je donelo još veću popularnost, a mladi ljudi su još više hrlili u njegove redove. Jedan Albanac, koji je zbog krvne osvete pucao u Đurišića demantovao je tu legendu: on je pucao u prsa četničkom vojvodi, koji se brzo oporavio od rane koja mu je probila pluća.[ The legend about Djurisic's invulnerability soon developed and brought him additional popularity, while young people rushed into his flanks. One Albanian who shot him because of the blood feud refuted this legend: he shot Chetnik voivoda into chest, but he quickly recovered from the wound that penetrated his lungs ]
This assertion is also found in Chetnik sources:
- Parežanin, Ratko (1974). Moja misija u T̨rnoj Gori: Ratko Parez̊anin. b.i. p. 25.
Брзо смо стигли до болнице «Крушевац» у којој је рањен лежао војвода Ђуришић. У дворишту нађосмо доста људи, већим делом старешина Павлових, четни- ка и виђених грађана из Подгорице и других места
- Krakov, Stanislav. General Milan Nedić. p. 333.
3 октобра 1944 Пав- ле Ђуришић је рањен кроз плућа од Албанаца код ријеке Цијевне и лежао...
This Chetnik assertion is also found in Yugoslav communist-era sources:
- ZBORNIK DOKUMENATA VOJNOISTORIJSKOG INSTITUTA: TOM XIV - DOKUMENTI ČETNIČKOG POKRETA DRAŽE MIHAILOVIĆA - KNJIGA 4: "5 X. Juče u 18 časova prilikom ispraćaja Princa Albanije iz Podgorice za Skadar sačekali su nas na granici albanskoj naši i albanski komunisti. U borbi koja je trajala oko pola sata ranjen je Pavle u grudi. Prenet je u bolnicu u Podgoricu. Jutros sam bio kod Pavla. Oseća se dobro. Lekari su mi sa-opštili da je život van opasnosti. Do izdravljenja Pavlova zastupam ga u dužnosti. Major Vukadinović." - [5 Octber: Yesterday, at 18 hours, during farewell of Albanian prince from Podgorica to Skadar we were ambushed on the border by our and Albanian communists. In the battle which lasted for half an hour, Pavle was wounded in the chest. He was taken to the hospital in Podgorica. ....]
Some recently published sources also confirm this information:
- Vijesti - SVJEDOČANSTVA O STRADANJU CRNOGORSKIH ČETNIKA I CIVILA U SLOVENIJI 1945. GODINE, Tanja Pavićević i Čedomir Radusinović: kada je vojvoda Pavle Đurišić pošao da isprati svog gosta iz Skadra. Kod Tuzi sačekala ih je arnautska zasjeda i ranila vojvodu Đurišića.- When voivode Pavle Đurišić went to set off his guest from Skadar near Tuzi he was ambushed by Arnauts and wounded voivode Đurišić.
If Djurisic was really wounded, that is important information that should be added to the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which one is a reliable source in your opinion? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reliability depends on the context. If there are no reliable sources that deny that Djurisic was wounded, the assertion about him being wounded could be added with attribution (i.e. "German and Chetnik sources say...") and cited with Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, so you are saying that any or all of them could be used? Just so we are clear? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not. It would be wrong to use non-German or non-Chetnik sources to cite assertion attributed to "German and Chetnik sources say...". I clearly proposed to use Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin to cite this assertion. I presented other sources only to illustrate that it seems that sources from different views support this wounding assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course nothing. I presume nothing when you are involved. Would you like to add a couple of sentences that would cover the wounding, along with the relevant citations? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- No reliable sources deem this injury or incident significant otherwise they would have mentioned it. I'm not keen on including this simply because Anti deemed it "important" himself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any particular reason for your comment to be so unnecessary harsh?
- Information that Djurisic was wounded is important not because I say it is. In every biography article such information is always important, don't you agree?
- Regarding the sources, don't you agree that information about Djurisic being wounded is more important than SUBNOR criticism, visit of the monument by the management and players of the football club Red Star Belgrade, militant Montenegrin wing of Serbian Orthodox Church led by Metropolitan Amfilohije.....? None of those assertions are cited with exceptional sources.
- Do you think that Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Heinz, the commander of the 4th Regiment of the Brandenburg Division (used as source for the whole paragraph) is more reliable than Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin and why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are mixing up topics, this is supposed to be about him being wounded. And the source is Tomasevich, not Heinz. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- No reliable sources deem this injury or incident significant otherwise they would have mentioned it. I'm not keen on including this simply because Anti deemed it "important" himself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course nothing. I presume nothing when you are involved. Would you like to add a couple of sentences that would cover the wounding, along with the relevant citations? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Of course not. It would be wrong to use non-German or non-Chetnik sources to cite assertion attributed to "German and Chetnik sources say...". I clearly proposed to use Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin to cite this assertion. I presented other sources only to illustrate that it seems that sources from different views support this wounding assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, so you are saying that any or all of them could be used? Just so we are clear? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reliability depends on the context. If there are no reliable sources that deny that Djurisic was wounded, the assertion about him being wounded could be added with attribution (i.e. "German and Chetnik sources say...") and cited with Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any particular reason for you to be unnecessarily sensitive? I'm gonna continue being blunt and direct. Cut the victimization.
- I don't care about "other stuff".
- If you take issue with what BBC, B92, and other reliable sources deem important and report worthy then by all means write them a strongly worded letter.
- Heinz isn't cited once in the paragraph, Tomasevich is. Do you realize the difference between going by what Tomasevich deemed important and what you've deemed important?
- Also do not purposely be annoying by posting identical messages on my talkpage. Experienced users know where to go to respond. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please be so kind and don't continue to write unnecessary harsh comments to me.
- That is quite pragmatic approach to reliability of sources. If they support your POV, they are reliable, even if they are utterly involved, nonneutral, news ..... But in case they don't support your POV or just because I proposed them to cite the simplest assertions, you proclaim them unreliable.
- That is non-constructive attempt to ridicule my position.
- Tomasevich did not present his own opinion. He presented Heinz's opinion and clearly explained that Heinz exaggerated the importance of his document and that his own report he wrote many years later do not support his 1943 story.
- The only reason I posted the same questions on your talkpage is because you refused to answer my question here or ignored them. If you know where to respond, why don't you present a quote from BBC statement about militant Montenegrin wing of Serbian church which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije, like I asked you more than once?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please be so kind as to not characterize my comments as unnecessarily harsh. I have gotten no complaints whatsoever from other users regarding my commenting style. That said Tomasevich is cited not Heinz. Why is this difficult to grasp? There's a difference between Tomasevich going through Nazi/Chetnik/Partisan sources and mentioning what's relevant in a Stanford publication and you trying to do the same thing and saying "aha", look what they purposefully ignored, this "important" injury which no reliable source bothered to mention and then chalking it up on your little Đurišić points board.
- You said you threw in your "last comment". What the hell was the point? Why are you still discussing it (especially in unrelated sections) if you've had your "last comment"? Do these statements mean anything or are they just pathetic jabs at other users? In any event I inserted that in 2012 when I had access to more resources so I'm afraid I couldn't provide one even if I wanted to. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment about my "pathetic jabs at other users" is another unnecessarily harsh comment aimed aimed to ridicule me instead to address the issues I pointed at. Please be so kind to stop with this kind of comments.
- You ignored my point. Tomasevich is cited, but the text does not present his opinion. It presents Heinz's opinion while Tomasevich clearly explained that Heinz exaggerated the importance of his document and that his own report he wrote many years later do not support his 1943 story. Will you please be so kind to explain why do you consider Heinz's controversial document more reliable than works of Hermann Neubacher and Krakov or Parezanin?
- Thank you for admitting that you are unable to present a quote which could help with verification of BBC statement about militant Montenegrin wing of Serbian church which is led by Metropolitan Amfilohije. I asked you this question a week ago. Why did you avoid to reply to it for a week, although I asked you the same question three times? You should not ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors, because somebody (not me) could see it as tendentious editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also do not purposely be annoying by posting identical messages on my talkpage. Experienced users know where to go to respond. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, this is the crux of the problem, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that you think that others should answer your questions immediately (regardless of what else they want to be doing on WP) and they should do all the editing, while you take "pathetic jabs at other users" (a comment I agree with). I for one am sick to death of your constant complaining, failure to edit in article space, strident demands, poor comprehension of English, and constant moaning about being treated harshly. Your comments indicate you are extremely sensitive, perhaps too sensitive to be editing WP. Edit articles or go away. Seriously. In future I (for one) will respond to you on talk only after you have edited (not tagged) in article space. WP:BRD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This message is on the top of this talkpage:
- The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article:
Peacemaker67 , PRODUCER
- If you two don't want to respond to questions about verification and sources in relation to this article please remove this tag.
- Your comment about me "you are extremely sensitive, perhaps too sensitive to be editing WP" is violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please comment on content, not on the contributor.
- The above tag also says:
- This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ustaše manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak?
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
The article emphasize that "Ustaše manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak" made "Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region".
Why would Chetniks be impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians because Muslims in Sandžak were victims of Ustaše manipulation? This needs to be clarified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not a major contributor to this article nor I added "manipulation" assertion. Therefore I am not editor who can explain it. Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Confusion
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
I don't understand why the Germans would have wanted to capture Đurišić in May 1943. Weren't they fighting on the same side? Đurišić had been collaborating with the Italians against the Yugoslav Partisans by that point, and the Italians and Germans were still collaborating as Axis powers up until that September. Is there any way this can be clarified in the article? Neelix (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting point. Essentially the Germans were always concerned to some extent about the Allies landing on the Dalmatian coast, and were more reticent to arm and supply the Chetniks even quite late in the war because they were worried the Chetniks would then turn on them. I'll formulate something to clarify the issue. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed. I remember that your response was different when I pointed to this issue at the talkpage (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually Ad, as you can see I immediately suggested you knock up a couple of sentences so we could discuss it, so don't bag me because you failed to step up to the mark (yet again). Once again, you failed to collaborate on an issue. All you appeared to be interested in was criticising and carping on about things you considered to be "significant". At the time this was one of a couple of dozen "major" issues you were going on about. Neelix has re-raised what was a valid point, but so far as I know, he does not have your subject knowledge, so I didn't suggest he "put together a couple of sentences" for discussion. As I said to Neelix, I will add the information into the article. Don't worry, I don't expect any help from you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Another unnecessary harsh comment you write to me. You are welcome Peacemaker67. I am glad I could help to resolve this issue too, like I helped to resolve dozens of other very significant flaws this article had (including factually incorrect basic data such as year of Đurišić's birth, date of his death, death place etc....). Since my language skills are not sufficient for article with FA class rating I will leave knocking up of couple of sentences to other editors. You can follow the link I presented to see what Tomasevich says about this point if you have intention to add the information into the article. Don't worry, I intend to continue helping with improvement of the quality of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't thank you. I must have missed your significant contributions to this article. See, you always leave the "knocking up of a few sentences" to other editors, you never do it yourself. We don't just present one source, we look at a range of reliable sources on the topic and craft something that represents the consensus position. But you appear to be completely incapable of understanding that process or doing it yourself, everything is black and white to you, and you ignore the sources that don't suit your POV. If your English language skills aren't up to it, why don't you go back to Serbian WP. Oh, that's right, you can't... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Neelix: I've added some further material to the article, some of which addresses your observation. Let me know what you think? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. With this edits (diff) you did not address the issue. In fact, you added even more collaborative POV:
- absurd idea about Germans legalization of Đurišić's Chetniks to be used to help disarm those Chetniks groups that had not been "legalised" by the Italians and
- Đurišić and his Chetniks were so loyal to Germans that they were ready to fight for Germans on Russian front (after German already lost Battle of Stalingrad)
- which not only increased this issue, but created additional two.
- The text of the article is even more confusing now. Addition of unclear German "need to eliminate the resistance groups that could assist the Allies in the event of such a landing" does not clarify why the Germans would have wanted to capture Đurišić in May 1943. The article now presents Đurišić as Nazi collaborative as possible, so no uninitiated reader would identify Đurišić and his Chetnik with "the resistance groups that could assist the Allies in the event of such a landing".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. With this edits (diff) you did not address the issue. In fact, you added even more collaborative POV:
- @Neelix: I've added some further material to the article, some of which addresses your observation. Let me know what you think? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't thank you. I must have missed your significant contributions to this article. See, you always leave the "knocking up of a few sentences" to other editors, you never do it yourself. We don't just present one source, we look at a range of reliable sources on the topic and craft something that represents the consensus position. But you appear to be completely incapable of understanding that process or doing it yourself, everything is black and white to you, and you ignore the sources that don't suit your POV. If your English language skills aren't up to it, why don't you go back to Serbian WP. Oh, that's right, you can't... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Another unnecessary harsh comment you write to me. You are welcome Peacemaker67. I am glad I could help to resolve this issue too, like I helped to resolve dozens of other very significant flaws this article had (including factually incorrect basic data such as year of Đurišić's birth, date of his death, death place etc....). Since my language skills are not sufficient for article with FA class rating I will leave knocking up of couple of sentences to other editors. You can follow the link I presented to see what Tomasevich says about this point if you have intention to add the information into the article. Don't worry, I intend to continue helping with improvement of the quality of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually Ad, as you can see I immediately suggested you knock up a couple of sentences so we could discuss it, so don't bag me because you failed to step up to the mark (yet again). Once again, you failed to collaborate on an issue. All you appeared to be interested in was criticising and carping on about things you considered to be "significant". At the time this was one of a couple of dozen "major" issues you were going on about. Neelix has re-raised what was a valid point, but so far as I know, he does not have your subject knowledge, so I didn't suggest he "put together a couple of sentences" for discussion. As I said to Neelix, I will add the information into the article. Don't worry, I don't expect any help from you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting indeed. I remember that your response was different when I pointed to this issue at the talkpage (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Now this really does reveal your POV. One minute you want to establish that Tomasevich's observations that the basic reason behind Case Black was elimination of resistance groups behind German lines in case of a landing, next thing Tomasevich is "absurd". You are the king of cherry-pickers, Ad. Are you saying that we should specifically mention the Chetniks and Partisans as the "resistance groups that could assist the Allies in the event of such a landing"? Or what exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- "the king of cherry-pickers"? This is not the first of your incivilities of yours aimed against me and I know that it will not be the last, unless somebody stops you.
- I still think that text of the article now is even more confusing about why would the Germans want to capture Đurišić in May 1943 and I explained why (the article presents Đurišić as Nazi collaborative as possible). If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize. You are, o course, free to disagree, but that does not mean you are entitled to incivility. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Unless somebody stops me? Ad, don't you think that someone else would have noticed this horrendous incivility and joined you in your crusade? No? That's because you are the source of it. Your demonstrated behaviour over a couple of years is the source of it. I am sick to death of your passive aggressiveness and snarky confected politeness. You have no insight into your own behaviour or your poor English comprehension. You have no entitlement to fail to comprehend English, if you want to edit on en WP. You are wrong, you don't understand, and your apology (such as it is) is accepted, if in fact it is sincere. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight given to Heinz's report = additional confusion issues
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
The whole paragraph is about Heinz's report is added to the article (diff). That added even more "collaborative POV" and made the text of the article even more confusing. Undue weight is given to absurd and controversial statements of Heinz (use of Đurišić's Chetniks against other Chetniks and on Russian front). The source actually explains that Heinz exaggerated the importance of his document and that his own report he wrote many years later do not support his 1943 story.
- Tomasevich, Jozo (1 January 1975). The Chetniks. Stanford University Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9.
Heinz seems to have got into some trouble with his superiors for making this contacts with Đurišić ( though his account of the incident many years later tends to exaggerate its importance and does not, in fact, agree with his own report of May 11, 1943
Editor who overlooked contradictory and qualifying information from the same source called me "the king of cherry-pickers".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Civilian threatened with execution
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
I think that this article probably neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. It is information from Tomasevich's 2001 work (pp=141-142) that is already extensively used in the article. He explains that on 21 December 1941 Italians declared that they will held population of Montenegro responsible if their troops were attacked again. On 12 January 1942 Italians specified how they intend to punish population of Montenegro in case of attack on Italian forces: 50 civilians would be executed for every killed or wounded Italian officer. In case of regular soldiers 10 civilians would be killed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Leftist errors
Unresolved(according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
In the above section I was preparing a draft of the comment. Since I accidentally saved it and posted here, I stroke it out until I further investigate this issue.
In the meantime I additionally investigated the Leftist errors phenomenon and concluded that this article indeed does not present the correct context of the events. Without presenting this policy pursued by communists in Montenegro, it is not possible to completely understand the reason for split and conflict between Partisans and Chetniks in this region.
The lede does not even mention this events. The article implies that communist struggle against class enemies and fifth column began after February 1942, subsequently to split with Chetniks and their cooperation with Italians. In fact, the situation was the opposite. The leftist errors actually preceded the split between insurgents and their conflict. Without correct chronology, the current text of the article could mislead readers about the real context of the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions on reliably sourced edits in respect to this matter. Feel free to make suggestions here in that respect, so that they can be discussed properly before being added. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- In Montenegro, as well as in Užice Republic and eastern Herzegovina, Communists implemented the ideas and practice of the socialism. Motivated both by fears of a "fifth column" and class conflict, Partisans pursued the extremist policy of Leftist errors which included confiscation of property, burning of villages and mass executions of people they perceived as potential class enemies, such as former military and administrative officers of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This antagonized population and as a result, many villagers who were far from being collaborators or kulaks, joined Chetnik forces en masse.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- And the citations, and the chronology of where you see this fitting? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The chronology should follow the actual events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- They were in relation to edits you made which were reverted and which were clearly incorrect. Your information above has not been included in an edit in article space. I have noted that fact alongside your "Unresolved" icon. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Taking in consideration your repeated treats to report me, I will try to refrain from editing this article as much I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are free to WP:BRD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Case Black - II
There was a discussion in this section of this talkpage which resulted with inclusion of Case Black to the list of battles.
Today, Peacemaker67 boldly removed this assertion and edit warred (diff1 and diff2) to keep it removed.
Here is what Tomasevich says in his work "The Chetniks" (page 251 and 255, note 164):
- "While the Partisans and the Chetniks were locked in the battle during the early spring, the Germans prepared their Operation Schwartz, the aim of which was the disarming of all Chetniks and the destruction of all Partisans in Montenegro and Sandjak"
- "Proof that Operation Schwartz finally evolved almost exclusively into an operation against Partisans, though it was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks, is best indicated by German estimates of losses inflicted upon the two groops:...estimated that the Partisans had 12,000 killed and 1,500 captured, and the Chetniks only about 3,000 captured and disarmed."
This work of Jozo Tomasevich is already used in this article and many other related articles so I guess it meets the requests of WP:RS for this topic. I expect that you Peacemaker67 will stick what Tomasevich says here the same way you do in the section above and that you will revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tomasevich does not say "Djurisic's Chetniks", he just says Chetniks. There was a large group of other Chetniks disarmed by 1st Mountain Division after the start of Case Black, and a total of 7,000 Chetniks were disarmed by the Italians and Germans in the areas of Montenegro, southeast Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nowhere does it say that Djurisic's Chetniks were disarmed during Case Black, and in fact the dates of his capture and the date given by Tomasevich for the start of Case Black make this WP:BLUE. It is chronologically impossible for Djurisic himself to have been involved in Case Black, because he was in custody at the time it started. There is no point in me repeating what is a basic and logical point, so the matter is closed as far as I am concerned. Re-insertion will result in a report to admins. I am not required to repeat myself over and over again, explaining to you basic policies and self-evident logic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Chetniks of "Montenegro and Sandjak" mentioned by Tomasevich were commanded by Đurišić. They were disarmed in period 14-16 May. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tomasevich (2001) pg 262: "just before the beginning of Operation Schwarz, the Germans captured and disarmed the best Montenegrin Chetnik unit, that of Major Pavle Djurisic." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that wraps it up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Later source has advantage. Thanks PRODUCER.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the age of the source, it's the fact that it corroborates the facts as already presented in the article, and that no reliable source has been brought forward that suggests that Djurisic actually participated in Case Black. Bringing up the age of the source is a transparent reference to other discussions where you are using that as an argument. But this matter is closed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Tomasevich presents two contradictory assertions. The latter source has advantage. Until other sources are presented which would confirm his earlier position this discussion is over and I am not going to participate in it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Completely wrong interpretation of the sources. Tomasevich does not contradict himself, he is entirely consistent. Yet, regardless of whether you and I agree as to the basis, the matter is closed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Tomasevich presents two contradictory assertions. The latter source has advantage. Until other sources are presented which would confirm his earlier position this discussion is over and I am not going to participate in it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the age of the source, it's the fact that it corroborates the facts as already presented in the article, and that no reliable source has been brought forward that suggests that Djurisic actually participated in Case Black. Bringing up the age of the source is a transparent reference to other discussions where you are using that as an argument. But this matter is closed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Later source has advantage. Thanks PRODUCER.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that wraps it up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tomasevich (2001) pg 262: "just before the beginning of Operation Schwarz, the Germans captured and disarmed the best Montenegrin Chetnik unit, that of Major Pavle Djurisic." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Chetniks of "Montenegro and Sandjak" mentioned by Tomasevich were commanded by Đurišić. They were disarmed in period 14-16 May. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- No its not. German documents say that Case Black started earlier, in Montenegro, with disarming of Chetniks.
- 15. maj:Jugoistok:U Crnoj Gori započela operacija "Švarc". Četnici očevidno iznenađeni posle kratkih borbi brzo su predali oružje. ..118. divizija: Kod Kalinovika, posle slabog otpora, razoružan veći broj četnika...16. maj 1943.... 369. divizija: Nedaleko Čajniča vodile su lakše borbe sa četnicima, koji upravo ratuju sa komunistima.....1. brdska divizija: Zarobljeno 2000 četnika. My translation:
- 15 May. Southeast. The Case Black started in Montenegro. Chetniks were obviously surprised and after short battles surrendered... 118 Division: Near Kalinovik, after short resistance, larger number of Chetniks were disarmed. ... 16 May 1943: ... 369 Division: Smaller battles with Chetniks around Čajniče (at the moment they were fighting against communists)...1 mountain division: 2000 Chetniks captured.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- And Djurisic was captured on 14 May. ie before Case Black, even by that source, whatever it is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- His forces were captured during this operation, while he was captured because of it, if not after it began.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- And Djurisic was captured on 14 May. ie before Case Black, even by that source, whatever it is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- 15. maj:Jugoistok:U Crnoj Gori započela operacija "Švarc". Četnici očevidno iznenađeni posle kratkih borbi brzo su predali oružje. ..118. divizija: Kod Kalinovika, posle slabog otpora, razoružan veći broj četnika...16. maj 1943.... 369. divizija: Nedaleko Čajniča vodile su lakše borbe sa četnicima, koji upravo ratuju sa komunistima.....1. brdska divizija: Zarobljeno 2000 četnika. My translation:
- No its not. German documents say that Case Black started earlier, in Montenegro, with disarming of Chetniks.
the article is about him, not them. He did not participate. That is it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course he did. German forces did not just accidentally walked into Montenegro and accidentally captured him. They did it within their activities in Case Black. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have nothing to add, so far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. I see no reason why I should have to repeat myself over and over again explaining simple things to you. Of course, you are free to use DR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)