Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radoje Pajović/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 August 2023 [1].

Radoje Pajović[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoje Pajović dedicated his life to studying the history of Montenegro and taught history at what is now the University of Montenegro for forty years. The author of twelve books, and editor of more than twenty, he mainly concentrated on the history of Montenegro during World War II, but in his later years he wrote about earlier periods. He was notable for his resistance to the historical revisionism aimed at the rehabilitation of collaborationist WWII Montenegrin Chetniks like Pavle Đurišić, which became a trend during the 1990s. He first came to my attention when I was developing the Đurišić article over ten years ago. After Pajović died in 2019, I thought that it was time to improve his article. It has gone through GAN and the Milhist A-Class review process recently, and I think it is ready for a run at FA. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead[edit]

Reviewing soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • He has been dubbed "the most prominent Montenegrin historian of [the World War II] period" by the Montenegrin historian Srđa Pavlović: I find it strange that this quote is in the lead (without citation), but is summarized in the body. Should it not be the other way around?
Or the same, which is what I have now done. A quote in the lead doesn't need to be cited if it is identical and cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His most notable works were...": I would replace "were" with "included".
That reflects the academic consensus as provided in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pajović married Ljilja...": You mention Ljilja as if she was brought up before, but this is the first time the reader has heard about her. I would introduce her ("Pajović married a woman named Ljilja...") and perhaps mention more. Do we know how they met? Do we know any details about their relationship prior to marriage?
No, sadly. We don't. Changed as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not necessary, but link medieval?
I avoided it to avoid two linked terms together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the most notable of which were...": This teeters towards NPOV; do the reliable sources state that these publications were the most notable?
Yes, Miljić should know, and I think the quotes from Petranović and Morrison support this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...difficult period of the breakup of Yugoslavia": While I am sure that the breakup was difficult, calling it such in a neutral encyclopedia might be too opinionated. Just a nitpick.
I think it is WP:BLUE. It resulted in multiple wars, over 120,000 deaths and many crimes against humanity. I doubt anyone with a knowledge of what occurred would challenge it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in which Amfilohije stated that Montenegrins were "oxen", "faeces", and "bastards" of the World War II Montenegrin Partisan leader Milovan Djilas": I did not understand this?
I've re=read it, and the translation was a bit clunky. It is hopefully better now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet. I cannot give an opinion on the sourcing of the article, but I can confirm that the prose and coverage generally seem in good quality. Wonderful work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Unlimitedlead, see what you think of my responses and edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very far from it[edit]

This article uses several unreliable sources. I tried very hard to explain and present detailed arguments, but my comment received nothing but one big fat "ignore" by our admin. PM, alongside some weird admonishment directed at me. Not only there was no proper response, reaction, the comment was archived, neatly, weeks before article's GA review. Not cool.

Sorry, but using such unreliable sources in your GA or FA is not acceptable. -- Ranko Nikolić (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your claims were addressed, or were invalid POV-pushing. This is a transparent attempt to re-litigate because your POV pushing was not accommodated. There was a source review at Military History A-Class and it found all the sources to be reliable. Other reviewers are encouraged to look at your comments, which were archived because they were addressed or invalid, and the responses and draw their own conclusions about who is interested in the Wikipedia pillar of neutral point of view, and who is pushing a POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you addressed - nothing. My POV? What are you talking about? I presented a number of reliable sources in my lengthy comment while all you did was stonewalling. Why is that? It beats me.
Just a few weeks after my post, you had the audacity to archive the same comment, which included independent reliable sources from Montenegro which clearly show that some of the sources and authors you are using were very unreliable.
It seems to me that the reviewer did not see my comment at all, because, oh well, it was neatly archived just after a few weeks. Since I do not contribute to en.wikipedia daily and I was busy, it went under the radar. We can ask the reviewer if he did examine my comment. Last I check, such actions are not welcomed on Wikipedia. I hold en.Wikipedia to higher standard, on principles.
My previous comment in a nutshell: Peacemaker is using sources from Montenegro which engaged in spreading conspiracy theories and false information about the covid and which are heavily involved in promoting Montenegrin nationalistic views and, even more so, he is quoting a 'historian' (he holds a law degree) who falsely claimed to hold a PhD in history, he presented false data to public and was heavily criticised by other historians. In Montenegro, he is considered to be a nationalistic pseudoscientist and more of a politician.
If you do not want to take it from me, for whatever reason, take it from probably the most prolific Wikipedia editor to come from Montenegro.
Google translate will do it for you. I guess that you don't speak Serbo-Croatian, do you? All in all, it sadens me that this type of work passes under the radar and is able to get GA or FA status. It seems to me that reviewers and other editors do not know much about this part of the world, they assume good faith, and then, what do you know, tabloids which were active in spreading false information about covid get used as reliable sources in GA.
Secondly, you added randomly selected views of this particular historian and some of his comments. When it comes to statements about problems Serbs in Montenegro were facing (there is a great overlap with problems of Aboriginal Australians), you presented no context, no additional information, no NPOV, just random bits out of context. That is not the way to do it, and no, sir, that is not my POV, that is how NPOV works. We do not copy selected statements, which probably are hate speech, we present them with context. readers would think that those statements came out of the blue, but the context is far more complex.
Opinions of other editors are most welcome. And the article's GA status should be checked again. -- Ranko Nikolić (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If what @Ранко Николић says is true, I may have to reconsider my support. While reviewing the article, I did notice slight undertones of pro-Montenegrin sympathies, but @Peacemaker67 is a respected editor, and I think they know better than to use biased and unreliable sources in an A-class/FA article. As the nomination progresses, I will take into account the opinions of other reviewers and make a final decision then, but for now, I see no reason to revoke my support. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true, Unlimitedlead. After 12 years editing articles relating to the former Yugoslavia and with major contributions to over 50 Featured Articles on subjects relating to WWII in Yugoslavia (see WP:BORA) I can spot a POV pusher when one appears. Here is the link to the thread Talk:Radoje Pajović/Archive 1#One more comment if you want to read it in all its misinformational glory. We don't not refer to Montenegrin Wikipedia editors on Serbian Wikipedia for an opinion on Pajović or any source used in this article, Ranko. I addressed all of Ranko's points in the linked thread. Most of his post on the talk page, is, as I have noted there, "very poorly sourced, original research, catastrophises minor errors, or uses other stuff exists arguments". Ranko claims Dragutin Papović is a "proper Montenegrin historian", except that Papović is a politician, who was a teaching assistant (a job he disparages when performed by Adžić, but perfectly fine when it is Papović) for ten years before a single year as a part-time lecturer in history at the university in Nikšić. He then joined the government for a couple of years as a public servant then became a politician. That is all from his bio on the skupština website. Yes, he got a PhD at the very end of his ten years as a teaching assistant, but barely used it before going into government. Hardly a stellar academic career as a "proper Montenegrin historian", Ranko. Stipe Kljaić (a professor of history at the Croatian Institute of History)'s review of Papović's book Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990 in Časopis za suvremenu povijest (Papović's book is basically the publication of his doctoral thesis) isn't exactly glowing, it seems pretty muted to me, stating that its main idea is something that seems obvious, that historians during the communist period were restricted in what they could say or write by the dominant ideology. Well, duh... Adžić is a current PhD candidate who has a masters in history, and co-authored a three volume series with Šerbo Rastoder on modern Montenegrin history, published only three years ago. Ranko claims Rastoder did all the heavy lifting on the series, but has produced zero evidence of that. On the other hand, Nada Tomović (head of the history department at the University of Montenegro)'s review of Rastoder and Adžić's 2020 three-volume series Moderna istorija Crne Gore 1988-2017. od prevrata do NATO pakta in Historijski pogledi is very positive. If Adžić is as bad as you say, what on earth is a respected professor like Rastoder doing sullying his name by co-authoring a book with him, and if he has really falsely claimed a PhD, how is he even working for a university at all? And why did their jointly authored book get a great review from Tomović? You did not respond at all to my post from September last year, so it is hardly underhanded to archive it. Maleschreiber conducted the source review of this article at Milhist A-Class review and concluded that the sources were reliable. Ranko, the one thing you ARE right about is that a higher standard is required on en WP. You are an admin on sr WP, and you have edited the sr WP article on Adžić which is an absolute disgrace for a BLP. Why have you, as an admin, done nothing about it? There is no way an article like that would stand on en WP, any admin worth the name would have deleted almost all of it as unsourced or poorly sourced conspiracy theories and potential defamation as soon as they saw it. I certainly would have. I mean, you reckon IN4S is reliable for the claim about the PhD? That would be laughable if it wasn't so serious that sort of conspiracy theory is given air on sr WP. Give me a break... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adžić holds an MsC in history and is a PhD candidate in history. By definition, he is a historian. His article is a summary of views held by Pajović in public debates. Per WP:RS, for the claims which are related to Adžić, there is no issue with using his article as the context has to do with the views of Pajović and his stance towards comments made by Amfilohije: Pajović also spoke out against the 2015 rehabilitation by the Serbian Supreme Court of the World War II Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović, which Pajović considered unfounded.[8] Pajović belonged to a group of Montenegrin historians who consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro and affirmed Montenegrin ethnicity. He also claimed that historical evidence confirms the existence of an autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church, and that it had been unlawfully abolished by force by Prince Regent Alexander of Yugoslavia in 1920.[2][8] He also wrote that Montenegro had been violently annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918. Pajović advocated for Montenegro to be a "free, civil democratic, socially just and multi-religious and multicultural society".[8] In January 2019, Pajović stated that Serbian clero-nationalist circles were spreading false information claiming that the human rights of Serbs in Montenegro were in danger. He roundly condemned as gross and false propaganda the 2019 assertion by the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Irinej, that the situation of Serbs in Montenegro was worse than in the genocidal Independent State of Croatia during World War II. Pajović also condemned the insults made by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro towards Montenegrins who asserted their Montenegrin identity, in which Amfilohije stated that such people were "bastards" of the World War II Montenegrin communist and Partisan leader Milovan Djilas. Amfilohije also described these Montenegrins as "oxen" and "faeces".[8] Pajović accused the same clero-nationalist groups of historical revisionism against the anti-fascist struggle in Montenegro and its legacy.[8] The source describes statements by Pajović and Amfilohije as they occurred from the perspective of each involved party. PM carefully attributed specific statements to Pajović and avoided the use of wikivoice. PM didn't promote the opinion that Montenegro had been violently annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia in 1918, he attributed it to Pajović as this is what the author supported. NPOV in such a case can't mean anything more or less than the attribution of specific statements to their authors. On the other hand, the general assessment about Pajović's career is not based on attitudes generated within Montenegro - although this would be legitimate as well - but on the assessment of his work in international academia. It seems to me that the concerns which were raised, object the assessment of Pajović's work internationally, but the article can't reflect anything less than this assessment, hence the review should proceed as is - IMHO. --Maleschreiber (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
I was traveling and I do not have this page on my WL. A courtesy ping was in order.
0) Ha, I see now, PM, you are writing your GA and FA articles about antique submarines and what not, and after publishing a number of those neat little articles and building a reputation for yourself on Wikipedia based on it, you are tackling biographies. Btw. I have authored more GA or FA, and all the other stats work in my favor, but I think that bringing that number up is infantile. Just wanted to kindly ask you not to humiliate other editors' work. It's not okay.
And so, because other editors have very little knowledge about the subject or the Balkans in general, you are able to get away with almost anything when it comes to biographies of people from this part of Europe, which you often use to shed a positive light on ideologies or viewpoints which you hold to represent the imaginary "good guys". The same observation was shared by another editor on this talk page, as he mentioned your pro-Montenegrin sympathies. On the other hand, you write borderline hatched jobs about historians which you think are or were "doing a bad job", like Milorad Ekmečić, a FA article which gives almost zero content about his work, scholarly achievements and his great books published in the 80s and earlier, but goes at length about his political views and role in the Yugoslav war and criticism of his work. Milorad Ekmečić and Radoje Pajović are two sides of the same medal which your work on Wikipedia represents. Do not get me wrong, I assume good faith, I believe that you believe that you are doing us all a service, but that' simply not the case.
And what about that little ping, calling your associate for a helpful comment?
All of that is not important, what's important is the fact that Montenegrin sources and fact-checker claim that you are currently using media portals which were active in promoting conspiracy theories.
1) Rather than addressing claims I made, you attacked me as a POV pusher, based on thin air, and you went on to make wild claims that "you have the experience" to recognize "my kind". Quite a strange claim. Your viewpoints and comments about Serbian Wikipedia are quite irrelevant and off-topic. Do not muddy the water, please.
2) All that aside, once again, you can not have your FA using unreliable sources.
Portal AntenaM is unreliable and here is why:
  • We have this portal called "Raskrinkavanje" (Unmasking). It operates in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. We use it for fact-checking etc. and it is one of the best tools for such actions in the country.
A) AntenaM introduced false information and "manipulated facts" in order to present the impression to their liking. Link 1
B) AntenaM is listed amongst the tabloids, like the notorious Serbian tabloid "Alo". They introduced false information stating that Sweden has removed elderly people from their welfare system. Link 2
C) AntenaM posted, alongside other tabloids, false and pseudoscientific claims that golden [sponge]] found in Montenegrin sea has a potential to create a great "anti-COVID medicine". This article and others in line with are spreading false information to the public.
D) The portal is active in weaponizing history, just like I said. For example here they claim that the Serbian Orthodox church is not an institution which is 800+ years old.
E) Their "twin portal" operated by AntenaM's owner Darko Sukovic, who also often uses slurs and insults against individuals who do not think like him, has the habit of publishing chauvinistic "funny articles" like this one, which attempts to portrait Serbs as "Turkish bastards".
Still good for your FA?
3) A PhD historian with published work seriously criticized the publicist Adzic (who holds a law degree and a master in history). Rather than accepting that he is not the best choice for FA article, PM went at length to diminish his career and academic work.The same publicist Adzic, falsely claimed to hold a PhD. PM ignores this and attacked a portal which he dislikes. Quite strange, yet again.
4) Other mistakes in the article:
A) Sandzak is not officially a region of Montenegro. The proper name is Sandžak, if you are using it.
B) Metropolitan's title is not properly used, see Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral. It existed since the Middle Ages. Did you mention that there are viewpoints held by historians which claim that viewpoints promoted by Pajovic about the "the existence of an autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church" are fringe and revisionism?
C) Diocletian academy is not official organization backed by Montenegro. It should be noted, otherwise it's misleading.
D) You gave no context as to way Metropolitan Amfilohije called Montenegrins to be "bastards". Not a single source outside of the Balkans, and maybe you, will understand that statement fully. You never mentioned that he apologized for his statements. On the other hand, you found time and space to explain Racic's actions. On that note, there were no Croatian or Serbian politicians at the time, only Yugoslav Croat, Yugoslav Serb, etc. It's the basics, old chap.
E) Legacy and death section mixes viewpoints on history, Pajovic's political viewpoints, criticism and some information about his death. I suggest that you work on the title.
And now, try to discuss and talk nicely and do not accuse other editors of "pushing their POV" and other nonsense.
Pinging you guys @Ljleppan, CT55555, and Gog the Mild:: I have no wish to waste my precious time posting detailed comments, like all editors should, with proper link and everything, if you gentlemen are going to promote articles which are using local Montenegrin tabloids for your next FA and you think that labeling people who comment as "POV pushers" is polite or normal. Take care. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have precisely zero idea why I'm being pinged here. Ljleppan (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not consider myself a party to discussion or disagreement about sourcing or point of view pushing. I think editors who have allegations plus evidence of misbehaviour should take those issues to the relevant notice board. Until now I made one comment that the article needed more balance. I'd rather stay out of the POV allegations and the sourcing debate. CT55555(talk) 19:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This answers none of my points, and just repeats the same stuff from the talk page thread and the original thread here. Repeating something again and again doesn't make it accurate. My point about reliability is exactly the point Maleschreiber made, in that the question is whether the source is reliable for what it is being relied upon for. In this case, Adžić is restating what Pajović said during his life about various issues. It is in no way being couched as Adžić's views, or those of the editors of AntenaM. What are you saying? That Pajović didn't say those things or hold those viewpoints? On what basis? Some responses to 4):
  • A "region" doesn't have to be "official". Herzegovina isn't "official", yet it is commonly used to refer to an area of BH. In addition, Montenegro wasn't a country when Đurišić massacred people there, the area was part of occupied Yugoslavia. Are you suggesting that it should be worded something like "that part of the Sandzak region of Yugoslavia now forming part of Montenegro" or words to that effect? Or what exactly?
  • Anyone who wants to know the "official" title for the Metropolitan can click on the link. There is nothing misleading in the way I have referred to the Metropolitan. Who are the historians who claim Pajović's viewpoints are fringe and revisionist? Please provide reliable sources for your claims.
  • There is no requirement that the basis for the existence of an organisation has to be provided when linking an organisation. It is hardly germane whether an organisation is approved or "official" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Doclean Academy (DANU) was formed in 1998 by highly respected Montenegrin scholars and artists (like the painter Dimitrije Popović, author Sreten Asanović, linguist Vojislav Nikčević, the historians Šerbo Rastoder (mentioned above) and Pajović, the physicist and now ambassador Slobodan Backović, and the law professor and judge at the European Court of Human Rights Nebojša Vučinić) who considered the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts at the time to be dominated by Serbian nationalists and basically a branch of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The group wanted to establish an independent Montenegrin academy of sciences and arts, and it is highly regarded. See this article in Science for some background on the dim view the government took about the machinations of CANU towards DANU in 2012, and here is the congratulatory message from the President of the Parliament of Montenegro to DANU in 2019.
  • The context is provided. He was referring to Montenegrins who asserted their Montenegrin identity (instead of identifying as Serbs) as "bastards" of Djilas. Where did the Metropolitan apologise? Link please. As far as the Croats, Serbs etc, ethnicity is critical to the understanding of the events described, which is why is has been included. The name of the country at the time was the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, not Yugoslavia.
  • The section heading has been commented on by other reviewers, and adjusted to its current formulation. They appear happy with it and so am I. It does not have to be chapter and verse of all the content in laborious detail.
Thanks, Ранко Николић. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also replaced several citations to Adžić in AntenaM to a similar article by him in Vijesti a few days earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What is the presidency of the Association of Historians of Yugoslavia?
Ah yes, a classic communist collective leadership structure. Various Yugoslav public bodies had "presidencies", which were usually a collective leadership group, although sometimes a single person. For example, see Presidency of the 8th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. There was even a "President of the Presidency" of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (the main one being Tito). It is like a board, effectively. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher location for Pavle Đurišić: kontroverzni četnički vojvoda?
Good grief, no idea how I missed that. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pajović ... consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro and affirmed Montenegrin ethnicity ... Pajović advocated for Montenegro to be a "free, civil democratic, socially just and multi-religious and multicultural society"." Do we need to effectively say the same thing twice?
They are not the same thing at all. One is about Montenegrin independence and ethnicity, the other is about the civic values of Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a new paragraph at "According to Miljić"?
Sure, done.
  • Are there no negative comments from RSs about his work? (Which may make him unique in academia.)
I'll do another check. There is known criticism which I haven't included, and that is from the revisionists themselves. Firstly, given much of this view runs counter to the overwhelming evidence, and is not widely held, it would be IMHO WP:UNDUE as I don't think that it has sufficient weight to be considered a "significant view" per WP:NPOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gog, I had another look and found a credible criticism of Pajović regarding his attitude to the crimes committed by the Partisans at the end of the war. I've added it, hopefully it makes sense? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CT55555[edit]

I'm new to FAC reviewing, so take these as amateur comments, not expert critique:

  1. This article appears to glowingly praise him throughout. Did you find any criticism of him that could be included? Most people have strengths and weaknesses.

Other than that comment, I found the article comprehensive and did not identify any other flaws or reasons to oppose. I'm too new here to support or oppose, so just leaving this as a comment. CT55555(talk) 02:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Per Gog's review, I'm looking for any critical observations about his work that can be added. As I noted above, there are some critics I am aware of who are the same revisionists he opposed. They obviously have criticisms, but in my view they are fringe views and not significant enough to warrant inclusion on the basis of NPOV. I will report back on the results of my search. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CT55555, I had another look as promised, and found a credible criticism of Pajović regarding his attitude to the crimes committed by the Partisans at the end of the war. I've added it, hopefully it makes sense? I have been unable to find any credible criticisms of his actual academic work though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CT55555(talk) 12:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, just as general feedback, here and elsewhere your comments seem insightful and on the money. Formally supporting or opposing is entirely optional, but the sort of prose summary you provide in this review is helpful to us reviewers, so thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. My thinking was:
  1. I should see how this nomination goes, I'll learn from that
  2. I should see how the various FAC I have commented on go. I have thoughts about if I should oppose or not, and I wanted to keep them to myself, see how the consensus goes, see if consensus matches my comments, see what feedback I get about my comments, and then self-assess if I'm good enough to support or oppose.
So this feedback nudges me towards offering oppose/support opinions on future. I'll remove not being so bold here just yet.
Regarding this article, I remain hoping for more balance, but if none exists after extensive searches (which seems to be the case here) I have no further critique of the article. CT55555(talk) 15:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • "Pajović also edited more than twenty books" is cited to Radio Televizija Crne Gore, but I don't see it there.
Whoops, not sure what I did there. Cited to the journal obit by Miljić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a founding member of the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts" is also cited to Radio Televizija Crne Gore, but I don't "founding member" part there. It is in the other source offered, Miljić 8 June 2019, so perhaps just remove cite 1 there?
Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources used appear to me to be reliable and of appropriate quality. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Translations of book titles should be in round brackets. See MOS:BRACKET.
Hi Dudley, I find this confusing. I acknowledge what MOS:BRACKET says, but WP:MOS-BIBLIO says you can use the cite book template, and it uses square brackets, so by using round brackets elsewhere, there would be two different types of brackets being used for the same thing in the one article. Which is not usually preferred on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read it, WP:MOS-BIBLIO is about citation in lists of works and in the bibliography, not in the main text. To me, round brackets in the main text and square in the bibliography looks right, although I cannot explain why. I think round in the main text is usual, but it is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was among those Montenegrin historians who refused to engage in historical revisionism to rehabilitate the World War II Chetniks who collaborated with the Axis powers, despite this being a trend in the 1990s." "despite" and "trend" sound wrong to me in view of his politics. How about "In the 1990s, some Montenegrin historians attempted to rehabilitate World War II Chetniks who collaborated with the Axis powers, and Pajovic was among the historians who opposed this politically motivated revisionism."
Far better, thanks, and done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pajović worked at the Institute of History for forty years from 1958 until his retirement in 1997.[1][2] As a historian, he mainly concentrated on the modern history of Montenegro". "As a historian" is superfluous. I would delete.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specialising in World War II, for the latter of which he was "highly respected both at home and abroad". "for the latter of which" is clumsy and superfluous.
Yes, not sure what I was thinking there. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for his contributions to science". "science" is an odd word here. Did the people giving the award regard history as a science?
Yes, this was a peculiarity of terminology regarding history in the communist-era which has actually continued (to a limited extent) into the present. Here is the 2023 award announcement. The award is actually the "Trinaestojulska nagrada" literally the "Thirteenth of July Award", and in Pajović's case was "za nauku" ie "for science", although it could be translated as "knowledge", so given the context I could render it as "for his contribution to historical knowledge"? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite a short article, so I think that adding an explanation of the use of the word science would be an interesting addition to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wanting to get too far off-topic, I've opted for a cited note explaining the conception of historical science in socialist ideology practiced in the former Yugoslavia. This had a long history going right back to Marx. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a paper published in the journal History, Čagorović criticised Pajović for quoting Petar II Petrović-Njegoš – Prince-Bishop of Montenegro from 1830 to 1851 – in his defence of the crimes of the Partisans at the end of World War II, namely that Pajović stated, "committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all".[10]" This is clumsy and obscure. I would leave out the prince bishop and explain what evil actions Pajovic was defending.
Have removed the Prince-Bishop. Will add something about the end of war crimes by the Partisans to provide context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, have now added something from Tomasevich about the Partisan killing of Montenegrin collaborationist troops at the end of the war, which is what Čagorović was referring to. Is this sufficient to place the issue in context? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pajović belonged to a group of Montenegrin historians who consistently advocated for the independence of Montenegro". I think that a sentenc or two on the history and dates of Montenegrin independence would be helpful. Did his advocacy go beyond historical writing to political campaigning?
Thanks Dudley, I have been wracking my brain about what might be missing here that I am not including and which has been perceived by you and other reviewers. At least part of it is context about the history of Montenegrin national identity and the split between those who emphasise a separate Montenegrin identity from those who see Montenegrins as "the best of Serbs" (as they have been called). I will find a couple of sources and add some needed context here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This provided to be a tough nut for me to crack, but a necessary one. Thanks for raising this issue, as it made me think more deeply about how to structure Pajović's work within his later advocacy for Montenegrin independence and identity. I think I might have managed that now. Interested in your thoughts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He roundly condemned". I would leave out "roundly" as pejorative and POV.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the insults made by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro towards Montenegrins". Maybe "the insults by Amfilohije, the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitan of Montenegro about Montenegrins"
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any of his books been translated into other languages. Was he monolingual?
AFAIK he was monolingual. His works were published in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts of Serbo-Croatian throughout the former Yugoslavia and its successor states. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His works were published in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts of Serbo-Croatian throughout the former Yugoslavia and its successor states." I think this is an important point which should be added to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article, but it gives the impression of being a partisan description of a supporter of one side in a polarised profession, with no analysis of criticism of his work apart from one comment. Did the praise for his impartiality all come from people who shared his views?
  • I get the impression that Montenegrins are almost equally divided between supporters and opponents of Serbia. Is this correct? If so, it should be explained. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to your point above, which I will address shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is partly done, just working through the best way to integrate it into the narrative. Should be done in next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dudley. I think I may have addressed all of your points now. Please re-read, esp the newly retitled section "Views on Montenegrin independence and identity", as I have tried to integrate his work and views in the context of the history of Yugoslavia and Montenegro. There is no doubt he was an advocate (particularly in the latter years of his academic career and in his retirement), however I have tried to use the context (and the work of historians and social scientists working in the same space) to step through the key points of his work. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • ""Old Montenegro" – an area around Cetinje largely free of Ottoman incursions which developed specific Montenegrin characteristics – meant that significant parts of the population did not closely identify with Montenegrin statehood or identity." I am not sure what you are saying here - which parts did not identify?
Quite a lot of the new population identified more as Serbs and Muslims. I have added this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • autocephalous. This is an unusual word. I suggest explaining it in brackets or a note.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proponents of the autocephaly of the CPC claim that church, which had already enjoyed de facto independence for a considerable time, fulfilled all the canonical conditions". The grammar seems to get lost here. "claim that that church"?
changed that to the. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the paragraph on the CPC and SPC difficult to follow. I am not sure what the solution is but I think you need to spell out that it was an argument between proponents of a separate church and a wider Serbian one.
Sure, have had a crack at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on the SPC says that the majority of Montenegrians are members. If this is correct I think you should say so.
It is a rather POV article that does not properly explain the contested nature of the split, but I have added what the US DoS says about it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not explain what KSHC stands for.
"Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSHS, Yugoslavia from 1929)" the king changed the name as part of an attempt to suppress the question of the various "nationalities" within the country. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is vastly improved on the background but there still seems to be a contradiction between the praise for his impartiality and the summaries and quotes from his works which are very partisan. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dudley. I believe I've addressed the rest of the additional comments, but I'm not sure what you are referring to as "partisan" here, can you elaborate? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are comments on his impartiality such as "Pajović has been praised for his objective writing about collaboration with the Axis powers in Montenegro", but in your description of his writings he seems to be portrayed as far from objective and condemning collaboration. His comment "committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all" seems highly partisan. Of course, there is nothing wrong with condemning collaboration, but I find the portrayal of him a bit confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dudley, thanks. His writings on the collaboration of the Chetniks are consistent with the academic consensus outside the former Yugoslavia. Prominent international historians, political scientists and others working in the field, such as Jozo Tomasevich, Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Marko Attila Hoare, Matteo Milazzo, Sabrina P. Ramet and Walter Roberts all came to the same or similar conclusions about the Chetniks, and many of them, like Hoare (who is still alive), are on the record opposing the same historical revisionism about the collaboration that Pajović opposed (most, if not all of them, cite Pajović's work in their books). Frankly, the revisionism movement adopts a fringe view and is not at all supported by the academic consensus outside of Serbia (and perhaps some Serb-dominated parts of Montenegro), where it is tied up with the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s and Serb nationalism. I'm not sure what I can do to make that clearer, but I'm open to suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a summary of what you say above would be helpful background if you can provide citations by the international historians. Clarification of what was meant by his "objective writing" would also be helpful - that even though he was a partisan of one side he did not make allegations unsupported by strong evidence? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dudley Miles. When it comes to the Chetniks (which is central to the importance of his work, and his first two key works include them or key Montenegrin elements of them), he truly is not "partisan" at all (perhaps he is accused of being that by fringe Serb academics, but mostly by populist journalists and politicians, whose output is tendentious in the extreme, but their views really are fringe and aren't credible enough to be included on WP). They continue to claim the Chetniks were not collaborators, despite the truly overwhelming evidence that they were. His work in respect of the Chetniks has been praised by local and international academics (this is already in the article) and forms part of the academic consensus on them. So, he wasn't "partisan" as you suggest, I need to better understand why the article gives you the impression he was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "committing evil in order to be protected from it, is not evil at all" seems a clearly partisan comment, and in the discussion of the CPC and SPC you use the word "claim" for the views of both sides, implying to me partisanship on both sides.
    • OK, I think I understand this better now, we were working off slightly different concepts of partisanship, and with your clarification below, I think I am at peace with the description. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writes emotionally but without passion about the opposing ideology". I do not understand the distinction being drawn in this quote.
    • AS mentioned below, I have checked the translation, and improved it, which hopefully helps with the clarity. No idea why I didn't do that earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have quotes in the sources, which I have never seen before and I strongly disagree with it as it makes it very easy for readers to miss them. Why not in the notes?
    • It is in the template, but a fair point, especially regarding the lack of context for the quote. Moved to notes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now moved the other one, and worked through the translation again and improved it (including fixing the tense...). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to "Roberts" in a quote in the sources, but there is no other reference to him or explanation of what work is being discussed.
  • I disagree on whether Pajovic is partisan, but that is probably just how we interpret the word. I would take the view - which I think is widely held - that all historians are partisan in that they support a particular historical viewpoint. I read once a preface of a book by a pro-Anglo-Saxon historian praising the broad-mindedness of the pro-Norman historian who had commissioned him to write the work. A good historian does not carry partisanship to the extent of distorting the other side's views and actions or ignoring inconvenient facts. I take it that Pajovic was a good historian in that sense, even though he was particularly partisan because he was on one side in a vicious political dispute, but this seems to be distinction which you disagree with. It will not prevent me supporting promotion, but it is a point I wanted to make. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PM, how are we going with these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Dudley, I hope I have addressed your comments now. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs looking at? This has been a very useful exercise, and I have greatly appreciated the questions and challenges you have posed. It has made me think more deeply about some of the concepts, and about how to formulate any future articles on historians from this part of the world. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. BTW do you know the detective stories of Rex Stout? They are set in New York, but the detective, Nero Wolfe, is Montenegran born, and The Black Mountain and Over my Dead Body are about Montenegran politics. I obviously have no idea how accurate the portrayal is. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Radoje_Pajović/archive1&oldid=1172421595"