Talk:Chetniks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Courtesy break

• Dear Fainites, here is another reviews (in Slovene) about Kljakic's and Kranjc's book from Slovene historians and scholars: http://users.volja.net/marijankr/K06-plava-garda.html . Slovene historian and scholar Boris Mlakar, have given the book "five stars from possible five". Marcel Štefančič jr. have given "four stars, out of possible five". Book received quite positive remarks in Slovene scholar community. There is also interesting interview with Slovene historian Dr. Damijan Guštin, about Slovene Chetniks as resistance movement: http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200525/clanek/slo-intervju--marcel_stefancic_jr/index.print.html-l2 . This is newspaper interview, not an reliable source (I know), although interview with relevant historian, and provides interesting info and details about Slovene Chetniks. Perhaps you can check it with Google translate, if you are interested in topic.

• Ramet's book is from 2006, which is quite recent. You have already mentioned some of my references as "recent", although they are older then Ramet's. As for Tomasevic' s book "Chetniks", he was first author in West who wrote book extensively about Chetniks in English language. In his preface, page vii, he mentioned his associates and contributors - all of them of Yugoslav origin. His main associate was Colonel of Yugoslav people's army (same page)! This raises questions about neutrality of his work. On other hand, authors that contest his claims and sources are almost all westerners and people of non-Yugoslav origin, amongst whom there are actual intelligence officers from WW2. Anyway, article about claims of "collaboration" of Mihajlovic's movement needs more balanced approach, and sources both pro and contra for collaboration needs to be mentioned.

• Article about Chetnik massacres have references to several authors (like Omrcanin and Dosen), and without confirmation of scholarly and neutral status of their work. For that claims, controversial Croat author Vladimir Žerjavić was quoted, who is also known as holocaust revisionist. Since most figures and claims about Chetnik massacres (very large article) come from them, article should be deleted, until more scholarly sources could be provided for such claims. Since claims for genocide (and victim numbers) are quite serious, they need serious references in order to back them.

• Also about picture of Chetnik Rade Radic with "Ustasa" that I mentioned before... Link, provided by another member that confirms name of photo is a dead link. There is no way that we can confirm that comment under picture is right one, specially since there is no Ustasa in the picture (different uniform). On other hand Rade Radic was former political commissar and memer of HQ of 4.th Krajina Partisan brigade. He deserted from Partisans and formed his own personal Chetnik band which was independent. He was mercenary and collaborated with Axis forces, and he was never member of Mihajlovic's organization. This was even admitted by Tito's court. Posting picture of Radic together with accusations towards Mihajlovic in article gives wrong impression that Radic's picture represent collaboration of Mihajlovic's movement.

• Existing article about Chetniks is strongly biased, and represent bias of one particular editor. Right model for balanced article about Chetniks should be this article from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/109820/Chetnik . Existing article on Wikipedia is example of cheap propaganda, and what is funny, even Croat Wikipedia have more balanced and less biased article about Chetniks.

--Ganderoleg (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. In my view the article should stick to comprehensive, secondary sources wherever possible. The war was long enough ago for secondary sources to be available. There is also an odd lack of dates in the article. Individual newspaper items should only be used to illustrate what was being said at the time - not as to the truth of the contents. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the photograph but there are pictures of Chetniks that can illustrate established facts without adding additional matters of dispute. I do try to avoid becoming directly involved in content on these articles. What I am trying to do is encourage editors to reach consensus in a civil way based on reliable sources. I do think that the ongoing controversy about the Chetniks should be included in the article as it is a live issue. However, the controversial view cannot be presented as the mainstream view as currently it is not.

Zerjavics figures seem to be roughly comparable to other more accepted estimates of total deaths like Bogoljub Kočović.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a rough paraphrase of Ramet which appears to represent the mainstream account - the WWII Chetniks arose from Serbian detachments of the Yugoslav Army who refused to capitulate in April 1941 and retreated to the hills. Outrage at German and Ustasha atrocities attracted recruits. Meanwhile the communists organised for an uprising but delayed - awaiting orders from Moscow, which did not come until Barbarossa in June. Some Chetnik leaders then entered into joint operations with the Partisans against the Germans. Mihailovic met with Partisan representatives from August 1941 onwards. In September Tito offered Mihailovich the position of chief of staff in exchange for merger. However - this was refused due to the Germans announcement of 100 dead hostages for each dead German etc etc. However, Mihailovic was also negotiating with Nedic at the same time. These were "secret" negotiations. Nedic gave money for arms. Negotiations with the Partisans broke down in October 1941. There were acts of resistance against the Axis by Chetniks up until November 1941. The Chetniks also joined operations against the Partisans in November 1941. The Chetniks attacked the Partisans in Užice. The next day - the Partisans attacked Chetniks at Pozega. In November they then agreed a truce. The Chetniks asked the Germans for for munitions to fight communists. The Germans refused and attacked the Chetniks in Ravna Gora. The underlying Chetnik belief was that the Allies would win and that their time and manpower was better spent establishing the conditions to achieve their programme of Greater Serbia rather than putting the population at risk by fighting Germans. This is the context in which it is stated that massacres of Muslim and Croat civilians occured. To this end they also obtained munitions from both Axis and Allies, staging occasional attacks on the Axis to impress the British. Ramet states the Chetnik movement was "polycephalous". Some Chetnik leaders entered into collaborative arrangements with Italians and the Nedic regime. Others avoided it. Even where they did collaborate they did so on their own terms. Generally they appear to have worked extensively with the Italians against the Partisans. She states Mihailovic was aware of this and was "drawn into the collaboratonist web". The August 1942 sabotage operation against the Germans is described as the price they had to pay for continued supplies from the British. The Chetniks lost support in Yugoslavia as they continued to attack Croats and Muslims whereas the Partisans attracted all ethnics. (Originally both Chetniks and Partisans were overwhelmingly Serbian.) By February 1943 the Chetniks joined German and Italian forces in a joint offensive, Operation Weiss, against the Partisans. Following the withdrawal of British support and continued attacks against the Chetniks by the germans who did not agree with Italian approach to them, it looks as if many Chetnik troops joined the Partisans. The Germans put pressure on the Italians to stop supporting the Chetniks who were fighting Partisans. There were however also some pro-Partisan Chetniks who fought against the Axis on Romanija mountain. In January 1944 officers of the Royal Yugoslav Army started a movement to transfer alleigance to Tito. From then on - thousands of Chetniks crossed over to Partisan ranks - particularly after King Petar called on all Yugoslav's to unite under Tito's leadership and called those who didn't "traitors". The remaining British mission as withdrawn in February 1944 - as a result of Mihailovic's collaboration and reale politik about the end of the war. The Chetniks became direct collaborators with the Germans in November 1944 - against the Partisans. At the end of the war, the remaining 60,000 Chetnik and Croatian troops and dependents who fled were returned by the Allies and massacred by the Partisans. In many respects - Ramet is more balanced than the current article.

A brief paraphrase of the controversial position is that the Chetniks were misrepresented to the Allies by communist sympathisers at headquarters at Cairo and in the BBC to allege collaboration and attribute Chetnik anti-axis operations to the Partisans in order to manipulate the Allies against their natural allies, the Chetniks - and support the communist partisans.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong photo information

There is a photo signed "German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustaše officer and Chetnik commander Rade Radić in central Bosnia". As I can see there is no "Ustasa officer" on this picture, since clearly no one wears Ustasa uniform. A man identified as "Ustasa" officer is either Croat domobran (which is something different from Ustasha) or Wehrmacht soldier. Besides that, how is picture of Chetnik together with German officer evidence of collaboration? There are pictures of partisans with Germans too, and allied soldiers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They are identified as such in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meeting_between_German,_Chetniks_and_Usta%C5%A1a_commander.jpg (uploaded by a User:Rjecina, who is banned). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They are identified as such by the person who uploaded it. However no one wears Ustasha uniform in this picture. Person in the middle is either a Domobran (different Croat organization) or Wehrmacht soldier.Ganderoleg —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Yes, also the original source is just vagualy stated and cannot be verified unless one contacts USHMM about this or something, which means this pic is actually a candidate for deletion (especially since uploaded by a banned user). If you want you can persue it for deletion on these ground, I'll remove "Ustase" claim here in meanwhile. And this ends my work here, I'm really just not expert on this subject to discuss thesis of the article. Oh, and one more thing before I go: sign your comments (the pencil icon above). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Photograph #46717 from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The caption says "German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustasa officer and Chetnik Commander Rade Radic in central Bosnia." Sean.hoyland - talk 21:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but United States Holocaust Memorial Museum most likely got the photo from Yugoslav sources, where someone confused Croat Ustasa and Domobran units, which belonged to two different organizations. Person in the middle is clearly not Ustasa, but Croat Domobran. These are Ustasa's and their uniforms: http://www.freewebs.com/zadomspremni/15%20studenog%201941%20%20I%20bojna%20Crna%20legija.jpg , http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9440/0068bzy6.jpg , http://www.jerusalim.org/cd/jasenovac/img/image002.jpg .On other hand these are Croat Domobran units and their uniforms: http://www.kalinovac.hr/stare_slike_marijan_slave_1_2/stare_slike_marijan_slava_64.jpg , http://www.kalinovac.hr/stare_slike_marijan_slave_1_2/stare_slike_marijan_slava_65.jpg , http://i49.tinypic.com/keaed3.jpg . As we can see, person in the middle can only be Croat Domobran or Croatian Home Guard. Ustasa's had specific uniform, which is quite distinctive. In former Yugoslavia, all Croat pro-Axis forces were colloquially labeled as "Ustasa's",which is wrong. Ustasa's were ideological Croat fascist movement (like SS), while Domobran's were simply Croat militia and police forces. Lots of Domobran's joined Partisans later in war.--Ganderoleg (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the museum and tell them. Their contact details are here. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. However you can clearly see from pictures (and something you can check online),that Ustasa's had different uniforms from the guy that wear Croat Home Guard (Domobran) uniform. It's like posting picture of Wehrmacht soldiers, and claim them to be members of SS simply because someone labeled photo wrong, when it's clear that uniform is different. Besides that, Bosnian Chetnik posted in picture - Rade Radic was not member of same Chetnik organization that beloged to Mihajlovic.--Ganderoleg (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works (see WP:OR and WP:V). The caption needs to be based on information from a reliable source. That is the case at the moment. Alternative captions for the photo need to come from reliable sources that address that photo too. If there is a conflict between sources we point out that there is a conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Link to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum about this photo is a dead link.--Ganderoleg (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed or you can just go to http://resources.ushmm.org/ -> USHMM Photo Archives Catalog -> search for 46717 Sean.hoyland - talk 21:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

A small point in the current round of mass reversions and the mass removal of material from this article by John Gradwell - there is a quote in the article from a german book "Ein General im Zwielicht : die Erinnerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau". The reference given is page 421. The quote originally described Mihailovic's Chetniks. John Gradwell the new editor altered this to Nedic's. I have looked at page 421 and the passage is as follows;

• Wirklich brauchbar waren für den Kampf gegen die Partisanen nur die serbischen und halbwegs auch die russischen Freiwilligen und - die Mijhailovic-Leute, zu denen ich einen Major und Ritterkreutztrager als Verbindungs-offizier halbe.

even with a totally crappy google translate as follows;

• Were really useful for the fight against the guerrillas only the Serbian and the Russian half-way and volunteers - the Mijhailovic-people to whom I have a major and Ritter Kreutz transformer half as a liaison officer.

it is obviously Mihailovic's men not Nedic's. Given this quite blatant misrepresentation of a source as part of a mass removal of material I am reverting John's edits. If you wish to make any more controversial edits John please discuss on the page first with verifiable sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:John Gradwell you have reverted Producers revert of your edits again - including the misrepresented source described here. This is not acceptable. The policy is WP:BRD. The Bold is you. The Revert was Producer. The next step is Discuss, not revert again. I shall rvert your edits and then they can be discussed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New article Required

This page attempts to depict the Chetniks as a Uniform movement, and suggests that Nedic and Mihaljovic's Chetniks were the same thing, seperate articles depicting the different Chetnik movements throughout the 20th Century, Eg. Macedonian Chetniks; Mihaljovic's Chetniks, Nedic's Chetniks, Seselj's Chetniks; would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do agree on this. This article should stay however (much modified, of course) with general info about the issue, and linking to those specific Chetnik articles where everything regarding each of them will be written. I support this. This article (and othe related like Draža Mihailović or Yugoslav Front) have been problematic for some time now. FkpCascais (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP is mistaken, Pećanac Chetniks are not covered here and have their own article. Starting five WP:CFORKS is out of the question. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Those articles wan´t be CFORK at all. However, selective sourcing and one side vision editing tipical of some editors could make them become ones. But there is enough material to make articles of most, if not, all of them. FkpCascais (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but now I understand, in that case you will have Chetnik related articles that you wan´t be able to even remotely associate with your favourite lede sentence "Axis collaborators", so you decide to boicot any attempt of making them... Nice NPOV approach. FkpCascais (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Its always fun to listen to you dream up your conspiracy theories. No, that isn't a problem for me: I could easily write-up a far more detailed collaboration section in a "Mihailović Chetniks" article - no problem at all. And if you're worried that the "Axis collaboration" section makes the pre-WWII Chetniks look liek collaborators we can simply rename it into "World War II collaboration".

The point is that there isn't much to write about Chetniks during the previous wars. They were a small force that started a few peasant uprisings. Besides, the "WWII Chetniks" are the continuation of the the "WWI Chetniks" and the "Balkan Wars Chetniks". Its the same organization that continued its existence through peacetime to emerge as a guerilla force in wartime. The original name of the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", was "Četnički odredi". Its the same organization As opposed to that, Šešelj's "Chetniks" are not "Chetniks" at all, but a bunch of paramilitaries that (for some strange reason) liked to use the name and pretend Mihailović did not collaborate (unless you agree with Croatian nationalists which consider all Serbs at all times to be "Chetniks"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view this article needs a lot of work. It shows distinct signs of past edit wars and cherry picking of sources. Much information is repeated in various places and is of varying quality. It also does not do justice to the degree of controversy. I would have thought time was better spent improving this article than creating different articles on different groups of Chetniks. However, if there are sufficient notable and verifiable mainstream sources on any particular Chetniks groups or movements sufficient to warrant an article - as there are for Pecanecs - there is no inherent reason why they should not have their own article. However, any attempt to create POV forks is unlikely to last long.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree Fainites, however if some editors show will and have time to, obviously that attempt should be boicoted "at birth" just because some other editor, that btw shows total ignorance on the issue (saying "started a few peasant uprisings" and other similar stuff) and has clear prejudice on them. And also, no direktor, from 2 years of experience with you I can definitelly say that you couldn´t add nothing more to the collaboration section on Mihailovic Chetniks because you had already mostly unnoposed used and abused of all possible sources and you did more than your best on that. If that was possible, you have been donne it already. FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fkp I appreciate you are involved in several arguments at the moment and feelings are running high but really that is an entirely unconstructive comment which is designed to end any discussion before we get it started! What it certainly doesn't need is edits where a quotation is altered as was discussed above.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right Fainites and I was heated-up from another discussion with the same user. I apologise but the other user should also stop using that kind of expressions as well. Two wrongs doesn´t make one right, I know, and I´ll try not to fall into provocations again. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate Misrepresentation

A small point in the current round of mass reversions by User: Kebeta

This user has reverted many untrue statements. Amongst them; that Milorad Pupovac stated that the Chetniks were Fascist Collaborators; the source used has the headline: Pupovac: Chetniks were anti-fascists

Another states that the Chetniks were a Serbian nationalist organisation; which contradicts itself further down the page when it features Croat, Slovene and Macedonian Chetniks; clearly meaning that they are a Yugoslav, not Serbian movement.

Given this quite blatant misrepresentation of a source as part of a mass removal of material I am reverting Kebeta's edits. If you wish to make any more controversial edits please discuss on the page first without deliberately misrepresenting sources. The next step is discuss. Not Revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your mass removal of referenced information as it was completely unacceptable. As for the Popovac statement, the source says "Pupovac: Četnici nisu bili antifašisti" in English: "Pupovac: Chetniks were not antifascists".

Also, I have expanded the information on the Montenegrin Đurišić monument that your were so keen on removing. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that is his personal view on the issue. We all know that Serbs were mostly divided into monarchists (Chetniks) and left-wingists (Partisans) and the clash between the two could easily be described as ideological civil-war. I´m saying this because Pupovac in his following statemnt says that HE consideres the Partisans and Allied nations forces as anti-fascist. Now, the first sentence in that chapter is quite absurd. It says "Today Chetnik activity is seriously restricted or banned in all neighbouring countries other than Serbia and Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina". I´m sorry to say, but it is rather the other way round, "it is exceptionally banned in X (source) and X (source)" if it is really even banned with all that word means. I will remove that part as totally unsourced. Any attempt to include it back must be made with sourced info and precise meaning. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's his view on the matter and it's attributed to him. Regarding the first sentence, if something is unsourced then by all means remove it.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

With Pupovac everything is fine in my view. I removed the other sentence. If the Chetniks are really banned in some countries it should be added obviously and if anyone knows about it and has some usefull sorces on that we should include it, it was just NPOV to have that sentence written that way and unsourced. Thanks PRODUCER. FkpCascais (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2005&mm=05&dd=17&nav_id=168603 Please Learn to read. Even with Crappy Google translate the headline says: Pupovac: Chetniks were anti-fascists — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this article of various opinions supposed to be a source of? The translation of that paragraph reads Pupovac: Chetniks were anti-fascists. Member of Parliament of the Serbian national minority and vice president of the Independent Democratic Serbian Party Milorad Pupovac said that Serbs in Croatia Chetnik movement are not considered anti-fascist movement. "The Chetniks were fascist collaborators, rather than allies of anti-fascists, " Knezevic said, explaining that he considers anti-fascists and partisans allied troops. This wikipedia article needs to be written from suitable quality secondary sources - not bits of internet articles taken out of context. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please learn the basics of Serbo-Croatian before attempting to lecture others. The translation by Google is flawed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this case blatantly prooved that. I didn´t used the translation because I read the language, and I just read the original in my language and it clerly says "Chetniks were not anti-fascists". Then I was wondering how could John have got the other idea. Now I understand. John, Pupovac is a Serb hard-line Partisan sympatizer, diskiling Chetniks. Just drop it. FkpCascais (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if the editor complaining above used google translate which unaccountably seems to miss the nisu. However, even with the google translate of the whole section I posted above it is clear the article section contradicts the translation of the headline. What I am asking is what is this article supposed to be a source of. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, even if you are not familiar with Serbo-Croatian you could put two and two together and realize that the sentence that immediately follows contradicts that statement. The article is being used a source of Pupovac's opinion in the recent history section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pupovac is essentially the leader of the Serbian minority in Croatia, and has been for quite a long spell of years. His opinion seems pretty noteworthy. The source describes his opinion, nothing more. From what I can gather this is what it is being used for in the article. What's to talk about? The thread was obviously started by mistake (mistranslation). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

John appears to be just making a WP:POINT by copying what I said about his alteration of a source in the section above. You are verging on being merely disruptive John Gradwell.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

references

I'm not expert in this area, and I'm not claiming that informations presented in this article are necessarily inaccurate, but, just googleing some of the authors which were used as a source isn't very reassuring. For example Marko Attila Hoare have some pretty chauvinistic attitude toward Serbs. And Ivo Omrcanin (among other things) had a job in the government of NDH, and claimed that 550 000 Croats were killed at Bleiburg (to say that this number is overblown would be an understatement). Also, results on Philip J. Cohen shows some interesting things. Vladimir Zerjavic's estimation of numbers of Croats and muslims killed doesn't say whether all of them were civilians or they also included soldiers (his estimation of the number of Croats and Bosniaks killed in recent war is exagerated, so this one (made after the brakeup of Yugoslavia) might be also)(according to his wiki page, he wasn't WWII historian, which is claimed in this article). Dizdar and Tucakovic also apear biased. Their estimates of muslims (and non-Serbs) killed by chetniks alone is equal to official total number of muslim (and Croat) casualties (civilians, colaborators, partisans...) killed by all sides (Germans, partizans, chetniks, ustashas...) during the war.

I haven't checked all of them.--93.87.187.57 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's indeed an obvious skew at hand in this article, as the most controversial statement relating to this movement (namely its allegedly 'active' collaboration with the Nazis) is highlighted in the very first paragraph of the page, when one may think such a disputed issue would have its own 'controversy' section below the actual introduction of the Chetnik movement. Furthermore the sources 1 to 7 quoted in this article are there to 'buttress' the said collaboration, which is obviously another giveaway of its prime objective aiming to hastily thrash out the Chetniks. Needless to add these sources include dodgy Croatian 'specialists', sometimes even happening to be the same person quoted repeatedly so as to add an extra effect and get two sources rather than one. By no means Wikipedia's best article Gavrilo14 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs a lot of attention and work Mr Princip. The whole thing is skewed by pro and anti "Chetniks were Axis collaborators" arguments as a result of which NPOV editing and fair representation of sources has suffered. Unfortunately I am not in a position to edit it substantially myself as I intend to remain an admin who is uninvolved in the content on these issues. It article also suufers from drive-by nationalist editing.Feel free to make improvements but please be careful that all changes and additions are from appropriate secondary sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass Reversions

I have noticed that User:PRODUCER has, according to the pages history, continously mass reversed almost every single edit, failing to state reasons why. Could someone please do something about this.John Gradwell (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you are going around removing sources and crying "vandalism". You should not be surprised if your edits are reverted regardless of (unexplained) merit. Use the talk page and stop edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Gradwell, your disruptive behaviour on this project should be sanctioned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • It already has been, once. I left the editor a note on their talk page also, and I hope that they will stop this disruptive behavior. John Gradwell, this is the talk page--this is where you can engage in discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'd like to point out what is wrong with this article. 1. A team of nationalists have hijacked the article, and have attempted to portray the Chetniks as some "evil axis sponsored Militia", accepting the Tito era view on the Chetniks as proof.

2. Edits portraying the truth, with verifyable sources have been removed, the reason cited as "Edit Warring"

3. The Chetniks were no Uniform Movement, as portrayed, the Chetniks who fought alongside the Nazis could not of been under the command of Mihailovic, who, on several occasions; executed Collaborators, note also that the Nazis offered a reward of 100,000 Gold crowns for Mihailovic in 1944, supposebly during the height of collaborations

4. Excert from the preface of Animal Farm by George Orwell, possibly the most important piece of Literature in the 20th Century

"The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicized with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the BBC celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but it evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protégé in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich's supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were simply kept out of print. In July of 1943 the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press 'splashed' the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued."

5. The Nazis were winnign the war up to 1943, when The Chetniks were fighting against them, According to this article, the Chetniks changed sides and joined the nazis as soon as it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose.

6. The Stories of Chetnik Massacres do not state which Chetniks committed them, chances are they were not under Mihailovic's command

7. Photos of German soldiers and Chetniks are not proof of Collaboration, nor do they state which Chetniks fought with the Nazis.

8. Many Photos of Chetniks "Collaborating" by the Yugoslav sources have been proven false

9. A large number of the sources listed are politically motivated, Joza Tomasevich, and the Communist Yugoslav government are nota reliable sources.

10. This is not disruptive behavior, I am merely publishing the truth. The idea that the Chetniks were some axis sponsored militia is ridiculous, Mihailovic was awarded the Leion Of Merit award in 1948 for fighting the Nazis, All content on Wikipedia must be the truth, not some garbage spewed out by Nationalists seeking to disown the heroism of the Chetniks. It might help for you to read this before reverting my edits. http://chetniktruth.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Most things John says are actually right and corroborated by sources. FkpCascais (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, someone with some sense. If one had to choose whether to believe possibly the Greatest writer of the 20th Century (George Orwell) or some Croatian writer with Known Nationalistic feelings over the Chetniks, one would definitely choose Orwell. I'm not saying Several Chetnik Organisations did Collaborate with the Nazis, possibly some of Mihailovic's inner circle (though not Mihailovic himself) were in with the Nazis (Found that in the Library today, A Book called "The Partisans", ill find the author and page number tommorow), There certainly was Collaboration, Just as there was Partisan Collaboration, But "Axis Sponsored Militia" Thats ridiculous. Its ridiculous that 5 or so people have managed to hijack this page and can publish whatever content they like, and revert anything they want, and ban the person from making any more edits, no matter how true those orgiginal edits are. Note Also that I'm not Serbian, though I have done extensive studies on the Balkans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This one, Chetniks, and Draža Mihailović articles have been heavily edited mostly by one single editor with a few others supporting the same POV, having in mind only a few sources all of them very unfavouable towards them, and selectively choosing them. Many other related articles are also heavily edited by the same editors using the same POV. I aproached you earlier and told you some of this things. I provided you on your talk page some links to important policies and guidelines at wikipedia so you could read them and see how to solve this case. You are not alone, and many other editors are aware of this (although some have gave up fighting constantly over this) but some more consistent solution needs to be done, because edit warring doesn´t seem to be the solution, although seems to feet the purpouses of one group. FkpCascais (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look - in my view this article could use a lot of work and has suffered heavily from editing by people with violently opposing POVs and a "goodies or baddies" approach over many years. However, edit warring and removing each other's sources is just a one way ticket to page protection and blocks. John you need to be very careful to cite sources for what you want to say - particularly bearing in mind your last effort, mistranslating from the german. You need to address the points in dispute one at a time rather than wholesale and give the names and page numbers of your sources. For example, if looking for sources about the extent to which Mihailovic was in control of all Chetnik activity, such as the Montenegran chetniks and Jedjevic's chetniks, try Walter E. Roberts who approaches the subject from the standpoint of information received by the various Allies and the effect it had on their decision making.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As John Gradwell continued to edit-war after being warned by Dmries I have reverted his last two edits. Any more edit-warring and I will protect the page. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note User:Faintites that by reverting my edits you are also "Edit Warring", and also vandalising Wikipedia as a whole, I think a possible solution is to simply delete the page, because whenever someone attempts to publish more truthful things, someone will revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article contains communist and Croat desinformation

Draza Mihailovic did not collaborate with the Nazis. British double-agents like James_Klugmann tricked Churchill into believing that Mihailovic did not fight against the German occupation in an effort to make him stop supporting the Chetnik resistance.

How a Soviet mole united Tito and Churchill

"Tracking his own experiences in Serbia from June 1943 to May 1944 against some newly discovered files of Britain's wartime Special Operations Executive, the office responsible for overseeing paramilitary operations, Mr. Lees paints a grim picture of official double-dealing. He documents how James Klugmann, a Communist, and Basil Davidson, a self-described leftist, both stationed in the Cairo headquarters of the Special Operations Executive, systematically discredited Mihailovic while undermining British material support for his forces. Their methods included manipulating battle maps and messages from the field, and attributing successful Chetnik military actions to the Partisans.

Mr. Lees goes on to show that William Deakin and Fitzroy Maclean, both British emissaries to Tito and both intimate with Winston Churchill, helped persuade the Prime Minister to abandon Mihailovic and back Tito, which Churchill did with finality on Dec. 10, 1943. Until then the Chetniks had received only 30 tons of weaponry from the British, while the Partisans had got 18,000 tons. Tito turned many of those British guns against the Chetniks." http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/10/books/a-coffin-for-mihailovic.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Instead of relying on communist and Croat desinformation the article should be based on sources like WW2 veteran Richard L. Felman that can tell from first-hand experience.

"We Found Out The Truth About the Serbs...When We Were Shot Down" World War II Rescued American Airmen Defend Serbs By Richard L. Felman Over 500 MlAs Saved By The Serbian People During WWII

...

While we were there, those of us who were wounded were given whatever medical supplies they had even at the deprivation of their own troops. If there was one piece of bread in the house, or one egg, it went to the American airmen while the Serb went hungry.

If there was one bed or one blanket, it went to us while the Serb slept on the bare ground. No risk of sacrifice was too great to insure our safety and well being. One experience which is forever seared in my memory is the time a village with 200 women and children was burned to the ground by the Germans because the Serbs would not tell them where they were hiding us. To this day, I can smell the terrible stench of their burning flesh. One does not forget such things.

The most incredible part of our rescue was that before each mission, our bomber crews were briefed by the highest levels of American intelligence that if shot down over Yugoslavia, we were to stay away from the Serbian people as they were collaborating with the Germans and "cutting off the ears of American airmen" before turning them over. Only after we were shot down did we find out the amazing thoroughness with which the truth about the Serbs was being distorted. http://web.archive.org/web/20001025102839/http://www.pray4pows.org/usa/serbia/500_rescued_in_wwii.html

The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder

WW2 veterans on US television: America's Veterans The Serbian People Are Heroes!

"General Dragoljub Mihailovich distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander-in-Chief of the Yugoslavian Army Forces and later as Minister of War by organizing and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia, from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to enemy control. General Mihailovich and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies, and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the Allied cause, and were instrumental in obtaining a final Allied victory." March 29, 1948. Harry S. Truman. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras.php?articleid=2061

Time magazine: The Eagle of Yugoslavia Cover

International Press and Allied Generals on Mihailovic: "General Mihailovich The World's Verdict A Selection of Articles on the First Resistance Leader in Europe Published in the World Press"(1947)

US major war film about Mihailovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.5.179 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All sources that you can provide will be usefull. You may find usefull the link to WP:SOURCES. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A point

"The Chetniks were never a homogenous ideological movement; some groups were implacably anti-German and sided with the Partisans in joint battles. An example of Chetnik coalition with the Partisans notably took place on September 28th, 1941 in Takovo and resulted in the first act of surrendering by a German garrison in the Second World War."

This lead passage is misleading, in that it leads the reader to believe the Partisans and Chetniks were allies dependent on the group in question. This is consistent with the demonstrably rejected "Good Chetniks - Bad Chetniks" line. The actual facts of the matter are as follows. The Chetniks and Partisans were never in a "coalition" of any sort, no agreements were ever reached or signed. For a period of approximately 50 days between roughly the first week of September 1941 (confirmed by 12 September by German intelligence) and exactly 1 November 1941 the Chetniks jointly held the line defending the Užice area from German forces and conducted joint operations while negotiations were held. After the first negotiations failed, Mihailović dispatched a delegation with proposals of cooperation to the Germans. After the second negotiations failed, the delegation made contact with the Abwehr with offers of collaboration against the communists (28 October 1941). On 1 November 1941 the Chetniks attacked (or "betrayed") the Partisans, but were beaten back and suffered heavy losses. After this no cooperation in any form took place between the Chetniks and Partisans at any time, by any detachments, or in any area.

This 50-day period is the only incidence of any kind of Chetnik-Partisan cooperation. It occured before the two movements were actually enemies, well before any Chetnik-Axis colaboration began, and it was not done by some "more anti-German" detachments as the text suggests, but by the main body of the Chetnik forces under Mihailović's direct command (cca. 3,000 of the contemporary total of about 5,000 Chetniks).

The listed source most likely only verifies the statement about the Takovo skirmish (which took place during this 50-day period, on 28 September 1941). The rest is quite certainly wrong. There were no "groups that sided with the Partisans", and if some "implacable" groups allegedly did not engage in collaboration with the Axis I would like to read which exactly these were so that the general claim can be verified with the sources, for I know of none. If the source actually does include support for the entire quoted passage, which is undeniably incorrect and misleading, then its reliability should be suspect.

More detail..

Going into more detail: On 7 July 1941 the Partisans formed the "Užice Republic" territory and held it. On 12 September 1941 the Chetniks "began taking-up positions" alongside the Partisans in the defense perimiter, and joined them in operations, hence the Takovo conflict. Two sets of negotiations were conducted between Tito and Mihailović. The first negotiations failed. Colonel Mihailović then dispatched Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of his aides, to Belgrade to negotiate with the German. After the second set of negotiations failed on 27 October 1941, on 28 October 1941 Pantić and Mitrović met Abwehr captain Joseph Matl, who reported Mihailović's emmisaries stated that they have been "empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". The two representatives further gave the Germans their commander's guarantee for the "definitive clearing of communist bands in Serbian territory" and requested aid from the occupation forces in the form of "about 5,000 rifles, 350 machine guns, and 20 heavy machine guns". On 1 November 1941, the Chetniks attacked their erstwhile Partisan co-combatants but were beaten back with loss. The Germans then attacked both forces, with the Chetniks sufffering serious losses from both sides.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Greater Serbia Chetniks 1941.gif Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Greater Serbia Chetniks 1941.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Sources

I've noticed that nearly all sources here appear to have a political bias, due to the nature of the Balkans + documents revealing that wartime information had been tampered with by communist agents http://www.independent.co.uk/news/how-a-soviet-mole-united-tito-and-churchill-1258340.html I think it would be acceptable to remove the following

1. Croat/Bosnian sources 2. Sources dating from 1943-1995 against the Chetniks 3. Sources taking information from communist reigimes

King Of The Moas (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The sources used are reliable peer-reviewed university published sources and are of the highest quality. There will be no removal of these sources on the bases of ethnicity or publication date. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cohen is controversial. However, the problem on many of these Balkans WWII articles is not so much the sources as the decontextualisation and cherry picking of particular facts/issues to promote particular versions of history. I don't think it's right to say "remove Croat/Bosnian sources" though. Both sides have gone in for historical revisionism. However, there are a number of good sources which post-date communist revisionism and take account of nationalist revisionism. You need to list which particular sources you have a concern about about and explain why - with evidence.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cohen is indeed controversial as such, and I would never use it as a major source for any serious editing, but still I wouldn't remove a university-published source from an article without very, very good reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to show how neutral Cohen is Some of the Chapters in his books are titled "The Roots of Serbian Fascism", "Serbian Complicity in the Holocaust", "Serbian Historical Revisionism", He even goes as far as to bring the holocaust within Yugoslavia down from the accepted numbers of 300,000-700,000 down to less then 150,000. Note also, if you read through it, you wont find a single piece of writing that is in any way positive towards the Serbs. One merely has to glance through the book to see that is simply a rant of hate speech against the Serbs with a propoganda tone and does not meet wikipedia's neutrality standards, nor do those who imputted the information from this book in order to discredit the Chetniks. = The Truth = (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a book called Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia by David Bruce MacDonald, published in 2002. It has sections on historical revisionism relating to WWII. He describes very carefully the parallel historical revisionism that both countries indulged in, trying to exonerate and "victim-centre" their side and paint the other side as evil, anti-semitic, fascist bastards. He specifically names Philip J. Cohen in his Serbia's Secret War as a pro-Croatian revisionist. There are plenty of decent sources on this issue without using sources specifically named in a scholarly publication as one of many revisionist sources produced by both "sides".Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all Cohen information, Do not revert without first discussing in talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CradleofTruth (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Massacres

Is your addition simply stating Chetniks carried out mass terror against 3 named groups somewhat POV without context? For ease of reference, here is the entire passage from Tomasovic; By 1941, several more recent grievances had been added to the long-standing antagonism between the Christians (especially Orthodox) and the Moslems who, rightly or not, were reminders of the hated Turkish rule; there were mutual grievances between the Croats and the Serbs especially, and after the invasion, the Serbs had fresh grievances in the treasonable activities of some Croats and the subsequent persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia by the Ustashas. Chetnik mass terror was directed primarily against three groups. First, these are the Croats in the areas where Serbs and Croats lived in mixed communities and where the Ustashas were implementing mass terror against the Serbs and the Chetniks against the Croats. Both were drawing on strong religious and national differences, so that terror and counter-terror had their ideological aspects in the thosand-year-old antagonism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The second group, the Moslem population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandjak was one of the primary victims of Chetnik terror. Here, the centuries-old religious and political Christian-Moslem antagonism had been aggravated during the First World War when many Bosnian Moslems joined the Austro-Hungarian Schutz-korps, which engaged in anti-Serb activities, and again after April 1941 when a great many Moslems joined the Ustashas and participated in atrocities against the Serbs. The Moslems were thus a traditional enemy, and it was only after mid-1943, when the potential political value of the Moslem population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandjak took on importance for the Chetniks, that they suspended their acts of terror against the Moslems. The third group against whom the Chetniks used mass terror was, of course, their principal enemy the Partisans. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding more context. By all means actually contribute instead of nitpicking. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. The reason why I don't contribute is on your talk page. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope I will return soon, but from looking to producer edits it is funny to see the difference between the original version and the one that he chooses to write... FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Budding edit war

Will those editors taking part in this - namely Cradle of Truth, Direktor and Producer, please discuss this on talk. Otherwise the page will have to be protected. Its WP:BRD. Thats Bold (CradleofTruth), revert (Direktor). Now discuss.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have noted reasons why the particular information should be removed and invited the two users to discuss, yet no such thing has happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by CradleofTruth (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cohen is indeed a weak source for such hard acusations, a discussion for the use of his work should happend. FkpCascais (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Aeh, this popped up in my watchlist, and although I don't generally pay attention, this one was amusing - user called CradleofTruth (talk · contribs) has removed information sourced not only from Cohen's book but also from refs named "bbc.co.uk", "ramet-three-yu", "tomasevich-the-chetniks", "Tomasevich256-261". The whole thing just reeks of POV-based censorship and a {{uw-balkans}} is overdue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. If people want to just remove Cohen it will take a bit of untangling.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the WP:The Wrong Version for a week to stop the edit warring. Please discuss - particularly Cohen which seems to be a bit of an issue and needs discussing.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that stuff so I know where its from: its all basically copied down from Tomasevich and Ramet, Cohen is there as an additional source I later found said essentially the same thing. In short, that stuff is Tomasevich and Cohen, but the new fella just removed everything that also had Cohen added to it. It will take some careful work, when I get the time, to restore all the stuff that has been wantonly removed over the months from that section on the whim of biased users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. These are all the removed bits, in the order in which they appear in the article, showing to whom they are cited;

• Other Chetnik detachments were more concerned with the Partisans which they saw as the greater threat to Serbian civilians. That led some Chetnik detachments to collaboration with the Axis occupation to an increasing degree towards the end of the war. cited to the BBC and Cohen/Reisman.

• Despite a number of meetings the co-operation did not last and in November the Chetniks attacked the Partisans headquarters in Užice with the Partisans counter-attacking the following day. cited to Ramet
• The Chetnik had a clear Serbian nationalist ideology and aimed towards the recreation of the Serb-dominated monarchic Yugoslavia or Greater Serbia. Dragiša Vasić and Stevan Moljević, two leading intellectuals of the Chetniks, elaborated, in June 1941, a memorandum entitled "Homogeneous Serbia", that:

-

The primary and essential duty of Serbs is: to create and organize a homogenous Serbia which must encompass the entire ethnic territory where Serbs live, and to secure for Serbia all necessary strategic lines and communication lines and centers as well as economic regions that would forever enable its free economic, political and cultural development. - These strategic and communication lines and centers are necessary for the security, life, and survival of Serbia, and if in some regions today we do not have a Serbian majority, those regions must serve Serbia and the Serbian people.

— Homogeneous Serbia, June 30, 1941

cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• It claimed that the territories of "Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo, Vojvodina, most of Croatia, northern (and possibly all of) Albania, and parts of Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary as well as Serbia proper" would be included in a Greater Serbia. It was proposed to be accomplished through the "cleansing the lands of all anti-state elements and non-Serb minorities". cited to Velikonja.

• In their quest for Greater Serbia the Chetniks regarded the non-Serb population with a degree of contempt that paralleled the Nazis' attitude toward non-Aryans. cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• In December 1941, Moljević drafted a letter that was endorsed by Mihailović and sent to Vasić.cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• In it Moljević proposed taking large portions of Croatian territory and "cleansing the land of all non-Serb elements" continuing "with regard to the Muslims, our government in London should immediately resolve the issue [of emigration] with Turkey, with which the English will help us." cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• Near the end of the war, however, Mihailović increasingly changed his position from Serbian nationalist to Yugoslavian unitarianist. As his international support eroded and Allied recognition and support was being switched to the Partisans, he decided to convene the St. Sava Congress which was organized by Živko Topalović, and held at Ba in the Suvobor Mountains, Serbia on January 25, 1944. It was attended by a 274 delegates with most from Serbia, some from Bosnia and Montenegro, a few Croats, one Slovene and one Muslim. At the congress Mihailović came out openly and unreservedly in support for Topalović instead of Moljević. The congress brought forth resolutions which called for the establishment of a monarchical, constitutional, parliamentary and federal Yugoslavia made up of three entities - Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. cited to Pavlowitch

-

• The movement consisted at all times of a vast majority of nationalist Serbs and Montenegrins. However, a small number of Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnian Muslims, who were loyal to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's government in exile, were royalists, or simply wanted to defend their homes against Nazi oppression were also Chetniks. The Serb Chetniks viewed the influx of non-Serbs such as Jews, Muslims, Croats and others as 'dilution and contamination of their "pure Serb struggle"'. cited to Hoare.

• Operation Halyard, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots (including 343 Americans) from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. It was the largest Allied airlift operation behind enemy lines of World War II. Most of the airmen were shot down during bombing runs of oil fields in Romania. Most pilots evaded capture and made contact with the Chetniks. Having by now lost all Allied support to the Partisans (along with the recognition of the King), and with the Axis defeat in Europe a certainty, Mihailović was going to great lengths to regain Allied support, and to depict himself in a favorable light to the western Allies. However, the Allies were aware that Mihailović's troops were at the same time also rescuing German and Ustaše aviators from the Partisans (as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944) and, on other occasions, even hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Axis occupation. cited to Cohen

• The Yugoslav Partisans also resuced and evacuated downed Allied airmen from the Balkans. Between 1 January and 15 October 1944, according to statistics compiled by the US Air Force Air Crew Rescue, 1,152 American airmen were airlifted from Yugoslavia: 795 with Partisan assistance and 356 with the help of the Chetniks. cited to Leary.

• Throughout the War, the Chetnik movement remained almost completely inactive against the occupation forces, and increasingly collaborated with the Axis, losing its international recognition as the Yugoslav resistance force. cited to Cohen/Reisman, Ramet, Martin and Tomasevich.

• The necessary ammunition and provisions were supplied to the Chetniks by the Ustaše military. Chetniks who were wounded in such operations would be cared for in NDH hospitals, while the orphans and widows of Chetniks killed in action would be supported by the Ustaše state. Persons specifically recommended by Chetnik commanders would be returned home from the Ustaše concentration camps (Jasenovac concentration camp). These agreements covered the majority of Chetnik forces in Bosnia east of the German-Italian demarcation line, and lasted throughout most of the war. Since Croatian forces were immediately subordinate to the German military occupation, collaboration with Croatian forces was, in fact, indirect collaboration with the Germans. cited to Cohen/Reisman and Tomasevich.

• When appraising the situation in western Serbia, Bosnia, Lika, and Dalmatia, Captain Merrem, intelligence officer with the German commander-in-chief southeastern Europe, was "full of praise" for Chetnik units collaborating with the Germans, and for the smooth relations between the Germans and Chetnik units on the ground.
  

- In addition, the Chief of Staff of the 2nd Panzer Army observed in a letter to the Ustaše liaison officer that the Chetniks fighting the Partisans in Eastern Bosnia were "making a worthwhile contribution to the Croatian state", and that the 2nd Army "refused in principle" to accept Croatian complaints against the usage of these units. German-Chetnik Collaboration continued to take place until the very end of the war, with the tacit approval of Draža Mihailović and the Chetnik Supreme Command in Serbia. Though Mihailović himself never actually signed any agreements, he endorsed the policy for the purpose of eliminating the Partisan threat. cited to Cohen/Reisman and Tomasevic.

• In mid-August 1944, Mihailović, Nedić, and Dragomir Jovanović met in the village of Ražani secretly where Nedić agreed to give one hundred million dinars for wages and to request from the Germans arms and ammunition for Mihailović. On September 6, 1944, under the authority of the Germans and formalization by Nedić, Mihailović took command over the entire military force of Nedić's Serbia, including the Serbian State Guard, Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Serbian Border Guard. cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• On 20 December 1941, Chetnik supreme commander Draža Mihailović issued a directive to his commanders outlining, among other things, the cleansing of all non-Serb elements in order to create a Greater Serbia. The objectives of the directive were: cited to Redzic and Ramet.

• Pavle Đurišić, the commander of Montenegrin Chetniks, was responsible for most operations that were carried out against Muslims, especially in Montenegro and Sandžak. cited to Cohen/Reisman.

• In a briefing to the Mihailović, Đurišić reported on 10 January 1943, that "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" in the county of Bijelo Polje in Sandžak. In another report by Đurišić dated 13 February 1943, he reported that "Chetniks killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children" in the counties of Čajniče and Foča in southeastern Bosnia and in the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak. The total number of deaths caused by the anti-Muslim operations between January and February 1943 is estimated at 10,000. The casualty rate would have been higher had a great number of Muslims not already fled the area, most to Sarajevo, when the February action began. cited to Tomasevich.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I wrote the section ages ago after reading Tomasevich Volume I Chapter 7, I had already read Ramet at that time. Later on, I read some related chapters of Cohen and added him as a reference as well to the paragraphs where he more or less parrots Tomasevich. None of it is only Cohen. Its Chapter 7, supported by Ramet and Cohen in those areas that they cover. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits come from about 12 different sections. The biggest single section is Formation and Ideology, the one that starts The Chetnik had a clear Serbian nationalist ideology... and ends with ...pure Serb struggle. All of that is cited to Cohen except for two sentences about the proposed geographical area of Greater Serbia (Velikonja), a passage about Mihailovic's expanding view towards the end of the war(Pavlowitch) and a passage at the end about non-Serbs in the Chetniks (Hoare).Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For example I couldn't find the sentence "In their quest for Greater Serbia the Chetniks regarded the non-Serb population with a degree of contempt that paralleled the Nazis' attitude toward non-Aryans" in Tomasevich but I did find it on p44 of Cohen. There's also one bit that ends "The objectives of the directive were:" but is then cut off. It looks as if this article has suffered from revisionist and POV edit warring resulting in all sorts of anomalies, repetitions and contradictions.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were referring to the section exclusively. I did not write much in the remainder of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is in the Formation and Ideology section. Cohen is clearly an issue with some editors. What is the suggestion as a solution here?Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing Cohen in controversial claims and using him only when supported by other sources? The problem is that Cohen often uses an acusational tone to describe clearly controversial issues asumed as such by other historians, thus making his work somehow being easily labeled as having anti-Serb agenda, thus being so much used in these articles. If you notece, all "anti-Chetnik" sections are mostly sourced as Tomasevich,Cohen,Tomasevich,Cohen,Tomasevich,Cohen,Cohen,Cohen,Tomasevich... Exagerating a bit; Tomasevich prepares the ground, and Cohen hammers it. :) FkpCascais (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

He's a university publication.. WP:RSN? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Ethnic conflicts section

Over at the article on Mihailovic, we've been working on a section covering terror tactics and cleansing actions, you can see the proposal and discussion. The 1st proposal involves a replacement for the section in this article, but obviously, that needs some discussion here, please take a look and makes comments here, if you are interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the section on ethnic cleansing with the new draft, please note any objections here, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the article

I'm outraged, this article has been manipulated by pro cetniks editors. I have creted a section about cetnik massacres who detailed very well those crimes commited by them and the TIME when those crimes were commited, and this is really a very important fact to show the falsehood of the statements that are saying that cetnik crimes were commited in response to ustase crimes, because if you check the edition where the this section was, you will see the date of cetniks massacres and those crimes were commited even before the Independent state of croatia has been created. I hope neutral editors will check what I'm saying. The article has been completly manipulated, removing accurate information about cetniks crimes. Where is wikipedia's neutrality? --190.172.240.141 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an entire section dealing with the issue in prose. Also, Malcolm is hardly a reliable source. FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

I've tried to restore the section to the state it was in after we reached consensus in post mediation. Please discuss desired changes here. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted DIREKTOR's edit, but I don't want to participant in an edit war. I strongly suggest that participants discuss their desired changes here or at the Milhailovic article. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This matter was not settled "by consensus" simply because you and the rest of your side of the debate say it was. If all we have to do on these talkpages is wait for your group to declare "consensus", then I suggest you save others the trouble of participating in "pretend-discussions" of this sort. The point of all this is to agree on article changes, and since your first draft proposal was not agreed-to, after a long discussion you simply declared that "consensus" was achieved. There is no point in discussing this way. You blatantly ignored some sources, placed undue weight on others, and then attempted to push the matter by force (and by exploiting the summer vacation).

To all: please be sure to avoid attempting to enforce this sort of WP:SECTION BLANKING through coordinated edit-warring and/or gaming the WP:3RR system. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please refer to WP:CONSENSUS--Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes. We discussed this at great length, you got a fair hearing, and consensus was against you in that instance. Consensus can change, but you need to present arguments informed by policy to make your case. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read all Wikipedia policies a long time ago Nuujin :), and you need to seriously think again if you are of the opinion that Wikipedia policy actually supports you in ignoring sources on the basis of a "majority vote", who's participants were, furthermore, to am man(!), among the incredibly biased users that all (along with you) belong to the same side of this dispute. I'm sorry, but you do not have WP:CONSENSUS. Though I dare say the agreement is unanimous among your "pro-Chetnik" group. As I recall, Sunray actually went about calling in all of the many Serbian editors that ever wrote two posts on the talkpage to vote on your draft. "I had a fair hearing"? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss editor conduct here. I suggest you focus on the article's content rather than editor's conduct. Do you have anything to say about actual content? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion on content. Specifically on whether a section has been blanked by "consensus" or not. I don't know what you feel called-upon to say, but my post is content-related in its entirety. In the meantime, with regard to your interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS, I suggest you read WP:VOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This is not the first policy the essence of which you (and Sunray) seem to have gained the wrong impression about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, so far all I see is ranting about how biased everyone is who disagrees with you and how we're all against you. Accusations of bias and collusion are not appropriate here. Of course, if everyone participating in a discussion disagrees with you, perhaps it is simply the case that you are wrong. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's just the point isn't it? Even if "everyone" who happened to participate in a Wikipedia discussion at that time voted against me, which was certainly not the case as you claim, that still would do absolutely nothing to prove whether I am "wrong" or you are "right". Go to a church in Kansas and you may perhaps have "everyone" disagreeing with you that humans are primates. Indeed, such provisions in Wikipedia policies as above apply particularly to this exact type of controversial, religious or nationalism-infused dispute that is likely to have a large number of "crusaders" for the cause.

As I've said before, this person is (quite indisputably) the no.1 Serbian nationalist icon of the 20th century, i.e. this is a Serbian history article. And discussions on the talkpage subsequently include significant numbers of users of Serbian nationality, many of whom (actually all participants in my experience) would welcome, some very passionately, your removal of negative information about their compatriot, and perhaps even national hero. I guess that means we can disregard sourced information, count the votes, and we have a "Nuujinn Consensus" do we not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the discussion of which proposal to use in the articles is here Which editors supported use of your version? I'm sorry you're upset about all of this, and I'm honestly trying to do my best to represent to the best of my abilities to represent what the sources say and write a decent article. As for significant numbers of Serbian editors, I just don't see that, and if it were the case, I don't see how that's relevant, any more than your ethnicity or nationality is. I really wish you would focus on the actual content of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as note, this is not a case of WP:NOBLANKING, as we already have a section dealing exactly about this issue. It is rather an attempt to introduce a new section with similar (equal) content, but rather with only one POV. I think none of WP policies supports repeating sections with different POV´s... FkpCascais (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, that's the original, non-butchered section I restored after having a look at the recent changes done to it before its final removal, or I should say blatant censorship. The years-old "Ethnic cleansing" section and its sourced contents were first butchered, then removed, and finally replaced by the highly euphemistic and incredibly offensive "Ethnic conflict" nonsense.

As I said above, if the section is not restored pending discussion (which I am certain will not happen), I will report both yourself and Nuujinn for teamwork edit-warring to push what is not WP:SECTION BLANKING, but blatant WP:SECTION BLANKING of the most controversial and heinous form. Really nothing short of an insult to the memory of thousands, and indeed tens of thousands of displaced and murdered Yugoslav civilians, who's only crime was not being Serbian enough for the Mihailovic Chetniks. "Ethnic conflict", Nuujinn? That's actually very good stuff, its gold - its Fox News even. You just delete any mention of the fact that the "ethnic conflict" took the form of ethnic cleansing, and voilà - as far as anyone can tell from your title the terrorized civilians "gave as good as they got". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We are in process of building consensus on this sensitive subject. If you cannot keep your head cool and treat this subject neutraly without mixing your personal feelings, and if you further feel a need to make some other types of pressure to include your edits, please be my guest to do whatever you feel appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) DIREKTOR, you didn't answer my question. The discussion of which proposal to use in the articles is here Which editors supported use of your version? And if you feel as if you have a valid concern that requires reporting somewhere, please go ahead and do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. Yes, and while the process takes place, please be so kind as to refrain from pushing your deletion of a very long-standing, practically ancient section from the article. My personal feelings, however, are not the issue, no more than your own devotion to this Serbian movement. I bit će mi drago da ti ponovno budem gost, FKPartizan.

@Nuujinn. As I have said, your question is both irrelevant and cleverly contrived. Do not twist my words. I did not say any of your users voted for me, that would be quite impossible, I said that not everybody voted against me. When the vote took place, you will notice I happened to be the only active user from the "non-Serbian" side of this debate, others being on summer vacation. Indeed the whole thing was a rather farcical affair, there is no need for voting at all - everyone knows exactly what each participant will vote for, there being two distinct sides of the argument. You seem to suggest that the more numerous or active one deserves to have its way (possibly because yours is the more active one).

But once again: your question matters little. Polls and votes will not help you have your way with the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So seems that everyone participating on the mediation was Serbian, but you... We are tied 1-1 (me Serb, you Croat) so please stop victimizing yourself or making conspiracy theories. Should I remind you that "we" (the large legion, pardon Cheta, of Serbian editors) have even more complains than you about the current state of the articles? Should "we" panic as well in order to push "our edits"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the "long standing edit" was introduced by you, and you constantly edit wared afterwords in order to keep it, because it was all but accepted. The mediation started in order to solve this. This is the version prior to your first edit on this article, and anyone can check the enormous ammount of reverts that you did ever since (really countless). FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No it was not added by me, I didn't write a word of it, so kindly stop making these weird fallacious claims ("this isn't section blanking", "you wrote this", etc.). Simply because it was added after I edited the article for the first time in 2008 does not mean its somehow "mine". But even if it was, who cares? It was there for years before it was wantonly removed. Please explain what you're doing pushing your opposed edits over what is undoubtedly the status quo, if the matter is being discussed (as you keep repeating)?!

Bah, I have people over. Thats enough of this circus for tonight. Expect guests tomorrow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so this DIREKTOR who inserted this very similar (basically equal) text was not you? Diff when the section was introduced by DIREKTOR in 4 edits. Direktor, don´t you already know I am ALLWAYS willing to provse evidence for my claims? Cought. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC) NOTE: Direktor made 72 (!!!) reverts since then! Only on this article and without counting the previous ones, as he edited the article for some time prior to my counting. Also, not counting the ones disguised as edit, or the ones his meatpuppets did (AlasdairGreen and PRODUCER which are also in high number and in exactly same nature). Anyone can check this on article´s edit history. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, please focus on the content. If you wish to make accusations of meat puppetry, this is not the right venue. DIREKTOR, I don't understand what you mean by my editors. I am trying to understand what you mean. You did say Even if "everyone" who happened to participate in a Wikipedia discussion at that time voted against me, which was certainly not the case as you claim, that still would do absolutely nothing to prove whether I am "wrong" or you are "right". In the discussion here, a number of editors supported the draft that I worked up, and it appears to me that no one supported the edits you wished to make. Thus your version was rejected. I'm sorry that bothers you so very much. You're right that it is not about right and wrong, but it is about consensus, and we did on that talk page achieve rough consensus. Can the article still be improved? Yes, but not by forcing your preferred version in place. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nuujinn, but it was not me who derailed the discussion from content to user conduct, actually direktor started questioning yours and everyone else´s approach to this discussion. Also, the numbers and conduct I exposed here are worth of note. PS: Seems I was unaware of the weight of meatpuppet accusation, I just copied that expression used by other editors to describe the conduct of those users by helping direktor to revert all users changing his edits (see edit history to confirm how they assisted one another in keeping these controversial edits in place). Apologies for the confusion, but this was necesary to demonstrate that the section was introduced by DIREKTOR and that the edit was all but stable or undisputed.. FkpCascais (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbian chetniks and others

I think when there are Serbian, Bulgarian, Croatian and other chetniks, this article should be renamed Serbian chetniks. It may be created a different article Chetniks or this term to be redirected to Cheta and eventually distinct articles about the Chetniks from the other ethnicities to be created. Jingiby (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2011‎

I don't really agree with that, since they are all Chetniks, and that's the core topic. Ethnicity and nationalism already plays a large role in how these articles are created. That being said, I would think having sections treating the differences between the various Chetnik groups does make good sense. Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Chetniks refer to the subject of the current article, a quick Google search dismisses Jingiby's view. --Zoupan (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Recasted lede

I recast the lede to reduce the POV elements, please discuss changes if you which to revert or alter the new version. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, your proposed edit is opposed. You are not restoring the original version (as one might assume from your above post), you are introducing new changes. New opposed changes. It falls to you to achieve agreement on the talkpage before re-introducing them, not the other way around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you've been pushing the same edits past reverts of you by a number of editors, and I tried to recast the lede to make it more neutral in general. We've discussed this at length during the mediation. The Chetniks were not homogenous, and it is incorrect to say that they all collaborated, period. What are you objections to the version that I put up? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to depict these events in such a thoroughly misleading and blatantly untruthful manner. I am certainly not "pushing any edits", I am reverting your new edit. Please read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The "number of editors", consists of yourself and User:FkpCascais, both belonging to the "pro-Chetnik" side of the ongoing dispute on these articles.

You did not "recast" the lede, you blanked all long-standing reference to Chetnik collaboration from it. Set aside the fact that the long-standing segment you are edit-warring to remove has a half-dozen excellent sources to its name, and that it was there since before the dispute even started years ago, according to WP:LEDE: "the lead should summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies." Your edit excludes the largest (and most controversial) section of the article, the "Axis collaboration" section, from any summarization in the lede.

Frankly, I am appalled that you are trying to disguise such blatant POV-pushing as "recasting the lede to make it more neutral". Even if you were not trying to remove long-standing, sourced content with edit-warring. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As always, if you feel that I have violated policy, you are welcome to report me, but continually characterizing other editors (which comments such as "pro-chetnik" and "blatent [sic] POV-pushing" and accusations of edit-warring) is, I believe, inappropriate. You added the text here, and I reverted it [1]. You put it back, accusing me of edit warring and saying that you would bring it up here with this edit. FKP reverted you here, and you put it back again here, and I reverted here, asking you to bring it to the talk page (2nd request for that, which you ignored), and you reverted again here. I recast it to make it more accurate according to our sources (which do not cast the Chetniks in general and uniformly as collaborators increasing in collaboration throughout the war as your version claims, and removing the example which seems to put undue weight on a particular resistance action). You're reverted it again, I put it back, etc., so here we are. You're asserting that it's been in the article for a long time, I'm not sure if that's really relevant, but it's certainly not really true, as a check through the last few month show that it's been in and out of the article a number of times and out of it for a good while before you added it back in--so really you were bold and reverted and didn't discuss the matter, despite your claims to the contrary. Now I have asked you a question regarding the content, and you have not answered it, so please do address the content issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sourced lead segment has recently been under attack by "pro-Chetnik" users and IPs (such as yourself by all appearances). That is not an argument for its removal in and of itself. The point is that the sentence summarizing the "Axis collaboration" section was in the article for months and years, since before the conflict or the mediation even started. It is the status quo. Your most recent removal of the (thoroughly sourced) segment is, as all others, without consensus or sensible rationale (other than promoting the "image" of the Chetniks, of course). Your claims of supposed "POV" denote only your own perception of it, whether honest or not, and not the sources listed below.

In short, it seems you are generally confusing Draza Mihailovic himself with his movement in general, which is the subject of this article. And you are picking and choosing your sources according to a pre-conceived notion of what you yourself personally consider to be "POV". That the chetniks performed ethnic cleansing en masse is beyond doubt and mentioned in numerous sources using that same term (some of which have been presented to you), with even the Chetniks referring to it as (quote) "cleansing actions" - and yet you removed that term on your own perrogative and edit-warred to do so. The fact that very large, massive segments of the Chetnik movement did indeed collaborate with Italy, Germany, the NDH and also the Nedic regime, has been presented in great detail in many impeccable sources - yet you are removing all mention of that fact from the lead. I'm sorry, but it does strike me as odd that you could possibly claim to represent any form of "neutral point of view" at this point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would stick to content. Let's start with Tomosevich, since Martin is not a reliable source, the ref in the lede points to page 226. Where on that page is the phrase "they collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree" supported? I see mention of collaboration between many Chetnik detachments and Croatians, but no mention of collaboration with the Axis. Cohen and Riesman, page 40, pattern of collaboration of M's chetniks, noting that there was an increase in the resistance activity in view of the British, and Pecanac's Chetniks as collaborators, but no support of the notion that all Chetniks collaborated with the Axis and in an ever-increasing pattern. Ramet, p. 147, notes that the Chetniks were polycephalous, and that while some groups collaborated, others did not. Again, no support for the phrase. Hoare is reliable, but perhaps the most biased of the reliable sources we have, so we can use him, but only with due weight. So most of the sources present really don't support this phrase, and I think it's undue weight and POV for the lede of the article. I'd be very interested to hear what other editors have to say about it, tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please read the presented sources on the DM quotations page for starters. Then, and I cannot stress this enough, please read through the entirety of Chapter 7: The Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy on p.196 of The Chetniks [2] for the most detailed account of all Chetnik dealings with various Axis factions. At the very least, until such a time as the information provided is obtained - and acknowledged in our discourse, we really cannot discuss these issues on a level plain, as is evidenced by the above post. For example, by the very strange implication that "the Croatians" (by which I assume you are referring to the NDH) were not part of the Axis. I shall not go into how it is incredibly offensive to equate "the Croatians" (i.e. Croats properly spelled) with the Independent State of Croatia regime. It also displays a lack of information about the Federal State of Croatia and the Partisans, by far the more effective resistance movement, which in 1944 e.g. mobilized 5 out of their 9 corps from the territory of (modern) Croatia.

• As far as the exact wording of the sentence is concerned, we are by no means obligated to use the same wording as the source, and are free to summarize information however we choose (in fact the alternative is actually prohibited). However, if you are looking for generalized assessments of Chetnik collaboration, many are available in the sources provided. In fact two of our sources use virtually the same wording, namely both Tomasevich and Sabrina P. Ramet use the terms "extensive and systematic collaboration" (on p.145 and p.246, respectively). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but we are required to use accurate references, including page numbers. I do not believe that the references support the phrase in the lede. And you might reread what I posted, since you misread it. Page 226 from The Cheniks: "The Chetnik groups were in fundamental disagreement with Croatian authorities on practically all problems, but they did face a common enemy in the Partisans, and this was the overriding reason for the collaboration that ensued between the Croatian authorities and many Chetnik detachments". No mention of the Axis. The burden is on you to provide references for the material, and if you find a source that supports the phrase "they collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree", we will have something to discuss. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you simply must provide sources for the phrase. The burden is truly on you to do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Croatian authorities" refers to the Independent State of Croatia, a member of the Axis powers. It is stated on that same page in the publication. Indeed, there is literally nothing else on this Earth that phrase could possibly refer to in that historical context. The incredible level of wordplay you're resorting to is, in my opinion, very revealing with regard to the existence of a distinct agenda in your editing, which can at this point be laid out in great detail.

Once again, you are not the person that decides whether or not something meets Wikipedia standards. Not only because I question your understanding of said standards, but also because I sincerely doubt you actually read the sources you are blanking from this page. The sentence is an accurate summary of the events described in the sources listed and in the article's "Axis collaboration" section. The source(s) have been provided. Kindly read them.

Also, as I have said before, it is very distasteful to resort to brute edit-warring. Achieve consensus on the talkpage for your new edits first. I shall certainly not ever agree to you removing the long-standing summary of the article's largest section from the lede (the "Axis collaboration" section). In other words: you can edit-war all you want, I will not consent to your agenda of blanking all mention of Chetnik collaboration from the lede. If you have an alternate summary proposal, please present it here on the talkpage, and in the meantime stop vandalizing that which we have now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, yes, croatian authorities may refer to the NDH, buy you claimed "it is incredibly offensive to equate "the Croatians" (i.e. Croats properly spelled) with the Independent State of Croatia regime". I'm sorry, but the NDH were Croats. Also, please note that the recasting does not remove all mention of Chetnik collaboration:

However, many Chetniks actively collaborated or established modus vivendi with the German and Italian occupation forces in order to fight the Partisans or other groups.

It rather acknowledges that levels of collaboration of Chetnik groups varied, and that is supported by the sources. There is nothing in that phrase that is not supported by sources. We can talk about how to word the lede, but for the version you prefer to stand, you need to supply a source that shows that the Chetniks "collaborated with the Axis occupation to an ever-increasing degree." The sources referenced simply do not support that assertion. Page 226 in Tomosevich, for example, treats one group of Chetniks in one area at one time. Ramet directly contradicts the phrase. Also, your incivility is growing tiresome. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've recast the lede again, to try to address DIREKTOR's concerns. I'm also fixing refs, which will take a bit, so please be patient while I'm doing that. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For the fifth time, please stop editing the article without agreement on the talkpage. Post it here first, you know how these things go.

"May" refer to the NDH? :) Believe me, I would be very interested indeed to hear any alternative theories on your part?

The Ustase, their supporters and their government were Croats of course, but "Croats" is a much wider term. The Ustase were a very small movement, several hundred strong, that Italy was organizing throughout the Interbellum. Their regime, that of a small minority fascist faction imported from Italy, was bluntly imposed by an occupying power, and (in spite of an initial upsurge), had very limited support among the Croatian populace - particularly, as you might imagine, among those who resided in the regions that were sold-off to Italy. It is also important to remember that, parallel to the Independent State of Croatia, the infrastructure of the Allied-recognized Federal State of Croatia existed in the (progressively increasing) liberated territories, and that a very large percentage of the Partisans were Croats, Josip Broz Tito being a good example. Now, hopefully, you understand. Therefore in future, even if some sources do so, please refrain at all times from referring to the NDH as "the Croats", any more than you would refer to Nedic's Serbia, for example, as "the Serbs", or Vichy France as "the French".

Regarding your proposal, I do not see how it is incompatible with the current summary, which does not recognize that collaboration progressively increased as the Allies increasingly switched (the vast majority of) their support to the Partisans (which you would be aware of had you consented to read the source as repeatedly recommended). As for characterizing the collaboration on the whole, the terms "extensive and systematic" are well sourced, being used by both Ramet and Tomasevich. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading through your newly entered proposal, it still incorporates large, misleading errors. Such as the implication that various Chetnik detachments fought alongside the Partisans. As I have pointed out, this was simply not the case anywhere after the Chetnik-Partisan conflict erupted. Chetniks and Partisans fought together up until Mihailovic's attack on the Partisan Užice HQ in October 1941 (during the First anti-Partisan Offensive). Afterwards, there was no cooperation between the two, whatsoever.

In addition, to be perfectly frank, your characterization of Chetnik collaboration is rather lenient and understated, as is your usual style.

To summarize:

• I disagree that the statement on the incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration should be removed, though it could be reworded of course, so as not to suggest it affects all Chetniks.
• I do not agree on the usage of the word "independently" in your draft, for obvious "Draza Mihailovic reasons". Frankly it is unnecessary, for starters, as the sentence does not actually imply the opposite, and it seems to be placed only for the purpose of explicitly "acquitting" Draza Mihailovic. The "independence" of Chetnik collaboration is a complex issue, with contradicting sources, and one I think we should avoid at this time.
• No Chetnik detachments fought alongside the Partisans after the first three months of the conflict, your draft suggests otherwise. That is just a plain error. It is technically accurate to say "some Chetnik detachments fought with the Partisans", but to place that in the context of your paragraph suggests this was the case throughout the war, whereas it only occurred on one single occasion in the first three months of the conflict - before the two movements were even enemies. Your draft also suggests, therefore, that some Chetniks fought against the Partisans, while some fought with them at the same time - whereas they all cooperated until October 1941, and then the lot of them fought each other until the Chetniks' final defeat.
  I did not look-up where you read that particular "summarization", but knowing the details I would immediately suspect the author of bias for such deliberately misleading wordplay.
• The terms "extensive and systematic" are well sourced and I can see no particular reason to exclude them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you're not in charge and you cannot dictate my actions. Everything I put in was well sourced, I double checked them all. You aren't referencing any sources, and just telling me to run off and do more reading is not a substitute. If the sources say that Chetniks fought along side Partisans, that's what we say, even if you do not like it personally. That such activity ceased at some point doesn't make it not true. You are also ignoring that in later stages of the war some Chetniks reduced their collaborationist activities at different times to entice British support, such as Mihailovic's engagement against Quisling forces in 1944 (Milazzo, p. 168), that some Chetnik groups split into pro- and anti-Partisan groups (Milazzo, p. 149), and that the German leadership consistently refused to cut a deal with the Chetniks, and only at the end of the war went so far as to entry into non-agression pacts.(Roberts, p. 125) I don't know if you've considered that relying on a small number of sources may be leading you to a one sided interpretation, but I fear that may be the case. One major problem with the lede you're espousing is it makes the Chetniks appear as a unified group, and they weren't. I'm willing to work with you, but I'm simply not going consider any statement made by you that does not come with an actual reference, including a specific page number. If you're not willing to do provide actual references with page numbers, I'll have to pursue other options. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow, signing off. This is really going too slow.. I wish I could stay up a bit later (its 00:30), but I've got to be at the hospital at 7 AM. Would you consider talking about this on Skype sometime? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I would not. Transparency is important in these matters, and I want everything said between us to be visible to any interested parties. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. Here's my proposal for the expanded coverage of collaboration in the lede you suggest. Its essentially what you wrote, minus the "some fought with the Partisans" bit, minus "independently" since that is very much disputed indeed (e.g. we have Mihailovic himself commanding collaborating formations in joint operations with the Axis), and with the addition of two sentences from the overall descriptions of Chetnik collaboration by Tomasevich and Ramet (the sources you apparently feel it is necessary to exclude as much as possible). I excluded the statement on the incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration, per your demands.

Although the Chetniks were the first of the two resistance organizations to be formed in Yugoslavia, they were never an entirely homogeneous movement. Some groups were implacably anti-German, however, most Chetnik groups collaborated with the Axis to one degree or another in order to fight the Partisans, whom they viewed as their primary enemy, by establishing modus vivendi or operating as "legalised" auxiliary forces under Axis control. Thus, over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetniks reached agreements on collaboration first with the Nedic forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in Montenegro and occupied Dalmatia, then with some of the Ustase forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.(Tomasevich, The Chetniks p.196) While Chetnik collaboration reached "extensive and systematic"(Tomasevich I p.246; Ramet p.145) proportions, the Chetniks' themselves referred to their policy of collaboration(Ramet p.145) as "using the enemy".(Tomasevich I p.196)

Regarding the "some fought with the Partisans" thesis. The author clearly does not, as you do in your draft, suggest that "some Chetnik detachments" fighting with the Partisans was a continuous phenomenon throughout the war. Of course, anyone thoroughly familiarized with this war knows full well that after the "falling out" (early November 1941) the Chetniks considered the Partisans the primary enemy. They fight together against the Germans before that, exactly between September 27 - November 1 1941.

If you seriously contend (and I myself cannot believe that's case) that "some Chetnik detachments" fought with the Partisans after the civil war between them began virtually at the start of the war, as your draft suggests, I would like you to please corroborate that with sources which actually say that, as opposed to making a general statement on the fact that at some time, and in some place, the Chetniks and Partisans fought together.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, do not twist my words: "The author clearly does not, as you do in your draft, suggest that "some Chetnik detachments" fighting with the Partisans was a continuous phenomenon throughout the war." My proposal suggests nothing of the sort, it mere states that some Chetniks fought with the Partisans, and that is true, even after 1941. And if you want to include the quotes above from Ramet and Tomo., we should also include quotes from Roberts and Milazzo, which basically contradict the statement as you have phrased it. It would be more accurate in regard to the Germans to note that agreements were made between local Chetniks and Germans, but that the German central command did not sanction such agreements and consistently sought to wipe them out. Also, I believe your timeline is incorrect, is it not the case that the collaboration of some of the Montenegrin Chetniks proceeded collaboration with Nedic's forces? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said before, please support your assertion that Chetniks and Partisan fought together "after 1941" with sources - before suggesting a formulation that implies it. The burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders with that kind of bombshell positive assertion. Surely, if this was so common a phenomenon to warrant mention in the article lede, you will have no problems finding an account of such an incident somehwere.
  (I have to say, this whole affair is rather amusing to me personally :). You see, having researched this war in detail I've never read of such an incident and I know nothing of the sort took place. Defections occurred all the time in both directions, but not cooperation between the movements.)
• I have not phrased the statement, Tomasevich and Ramet did. Once again contrary to what appears to be your own personal impression, I'm sure the sources do not contradict in reality. What statements from Roberts and Milazzo are you referring to? And please be sure that the alleged "contradiction" truly and unambiguously is just that, as opposed to something like a statement that "some Chetnik groups did not collaborate", which is not contested and is not in opposition to Ramet and Tomasevich.
• The timeline is quoted almost verbatim from Tomasevich. You'll find he explains himself in the first section of chapter 7 of volume I (located on p.196). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, defections are part of it. Here's one: "Many armed detachments simply dissolved or pursued independent courses of action. In the vicinity of the Romanije Mountains, the Chetniks split up into pro- and anti-Partisan groups; in the Kalinovik sector evidence suggests that a former Chetnik officer who had just gone over to the Partisans was responsible for the murder of other still loyal supporters of M." (Milazzo, p. 149) Your version consistently and uniformly paints the entire movement as collaborationist, and that's not what the sources show. You speak of the Chetniks as if it were a unified movement, but it wasn't, and that's a big problem from my point of view.

Here's a quote from Roberts:"Cetnik collaboration with the Germans, however, was another matter. What the Cetniks were doing was to attempt to prevent the Partisans from entering "their" territory, and in that respect their and the Germans' aims coincided. But any direct collaboration between the Cetniks and the Germans must be excluded, simply because the objective of the German High Command was the destruction of the Cetniks." (Roberts, p. 101). It is very true that M. tried to collaborate, for example, with the Germans, and that there were local accommodations, but the German command structure never endorsed these. The situation was more complicated than you wish to portray it. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Defections are not "part of it". Defections of Chetnik units to the Partisans were very commonplace, particularly towards the end of the war when the King and his government came out publicly for the Tito and the Partisans (October 1944). However that is not what we're talking about, and if we are by any chance, then defection is what we'll call it. Your formulation unambiguously suggests Chetniks and Partisans were allies in certain areas, depending on the Chetnik unit there. If that is what you still claim then please source it.

Moving on to the other issue. If you feel a particular part of my meager two sentences in your draft generalizes to a greater degree than necessary, please be more specific. However, bear in mind that all I am doing is keeping to the sources extremely closely (almost word-for-word).

I can not see how any of the above contradicts the fact that "Chetnik collaboration was extensive and systematic"? If, instead, you are now challenging the fact that Chetnik troops collaborated with the Germans (at times and in places), numerous incidents of that sort can easily be described in full detail from sources. But none of the above constitutes a contradiction to the general assessments on the extent of Chetnik collaboration Tomasevich and Ramet brought forth, as the latter do not address the question of whom the Chetniks collaborated with in any way.

We are both well informed with regard to Mihailkovic, but I sense a certain advantage when it comes to the movement as a whole. Yes, Mihailovic wanted to reach an accommodation with the Germans, but Hitler and the Nazis (unlike the German military itself) would not agree. The German command therefore, as you say, never endorsed the collaboration - but it did occur nevertheless. Before I start copying down pages and chapters, I want to be sure you are in fact challenging that? In any case, before you do, please read this; it is sourced in its entirety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day DIREKTOR. The quote from Tomasevich at p.246 you refer to is 'systematic and enduring', not 'extensive and systematic' as you have indicated. Not wishing to engage in semantics, but it appears you have combined the Tomasevich and Ramet references, and they are not the same, so they should probably be separated or summarised differently.

And g'day Nuujinn as well. In the current lede, you have used an example of Chetnik-Partisan cooperation prior to the split in November 1941. I consider the inclusion of this example is potentially misleading, as it follows and supports a general statement that Chetniks 'sided with the Partisans in joint battles'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to either qualify the 'joint operations' as occurring before the split, or provide a 'post-split' example. I am not aware of any post-split examples, but am open-minded if you can source a high quality reference. Also, in respect of endorsement of collaboration by the German high command, Colonel General Lohr, commander in chief of the south-east, and of Army Group E throughout that region of Europe (not just a local battalion, regimental or even divisional commander), accepted that the temporary German shoulder-to-shoulder fighting alongside the Chetniks against the Partisans was a necessary evil. He was referring to the fighting during Operation Weiss 2 in February-March 1943 (Tomasevich Vol I, p.247). It was 'uncomfortable' for the Germans, according to Tomasevich, but it occurred, particularly in Konjic where Germans and Chetniks fought alongside each other and the Germans provided ammunition to the Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right the two sources do use slightly different wording. We can choose one of the two versions or simply use "systematic" since that's certainly sourced.

Chetniks and Partisans never cooperated after November 1941, the very thought is laughable of course - they hated each-other's guts. The Partisans considered them "traitors" ("Četnik-izdajica!") both in the sense of collaboration with the foreign enemy and their attack on Užice at the time when they were unofficial allies. The Chetniks, of course, as is noted numerous times in many sources, considered the Partisans their primary enemy, and even collaborated with the Axis to get rid of them.

Your example of Fall Weiss is a good one, and let me add once more that Draza Mihailovic, by his own recorded personal admission, maintained full control of Chetnik units participating in that operation (and that was one of the facts omitted by Nuujinn in his draft proposal for the section on the collaboration of Draza Mihailovic). However, according to Tomasevich, Chetnik-German collaboration reached its high point after the Italian capitulation. Also, Tomasevich notes on numerous occasions that collaboration with the NDH, which started in 1942 and was widespread in Bosnia north of the German-Italian demarcation line, was indirect collaboration with the Germans as well since the NDH was not an independent faction - its military was both supplied and commanded by the Germans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you are all going to have to forgive me for the lack of inflections on names and places on the talk page. DIREKTOR, I would be happy with just 'systematic', as it is the same term used by two quality sources. As far as indirect collaboration via the Nedic regime or NDH is concerned, perhaps you would consider adding 'and/or the quisling regimes' or something similar after the word 'Axis' in your draft of that para?

Given the article is about all Chetniks but with an emphasis on the WW2 Chetniks, and there is a separate albeit brief article about the Pecanac Chetniks, I believe that the introductory couple of sentences in the lede should mention the Pecanac Chetniks. After all, they existed from the time of the invasion and their existence in parallel with the Mihailovic Chetniks demonstrates the wide range of Chetnik organisations that existed from the very beginning. I also consider it strange that the lede of such an article does not actually mention Mihailovic himself, especially when the movement that is named (JVUO) is clearly the one he created. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, I think mentioning other Chetnik groups in lede would make sense so long as it is brief. Also, to be clear, the current lede isn't my version, I've been trying to move away from the current version. See this for my proposal, which moves the specific battle reference to the footnote, as I feel the mention of the one specific event is undue weight. I agree that systematic is sourced, but not all sources agree. Milazzo, on page 182 in his conclusion says "The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order" , and in the preface "It is unavoidable that a study which deals with a movement whose leaders’ long-haul anti-Axis goals all proved abortive and whose short-term arrangements involved a number of tactical accommodations with the occupation order must attempt to clarify the extremely difficult issues of resistance and collaboration. The overriding question is how a movement whose leadership was in no sense pro-Axis found itself progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities and the native Quisling regimes. What was it about the situation in occupied Yugoslavia and the Serb officers’ response to that state of affairs which prevented them from carrying out serious anti-Axis activity or engaging in effective collaboration?" I think it's important to get something beyond "systematic" in there, since it appears that the collaboration was based on local and transient relationships, esp. in regard to the Germans, for most if not all of the war. For example, there's no doubt that Mihailovic would have liked to have achieved a relationship with the Germans early on, but he failed to do so, and as late as 1944, Hitler himself opposed any collaboration between small tactical operations. The word collaboration is loaded, and we should take care to specify what it means in this context. In the current lede, the phrase I particularly object to is "ever increasing", as I have yet to see a source that supports use of that phrase. Also, for what it is worth, I'll be on WP spottily for the next week or so, as RL has reared it's ugly head.... Nuujinn 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you very often see conflicting sources when there are none in reality. I had already cautioned you to please be certain that is in fact the case before making that claim. The two sources you quote simply add that, in addition to "systematic", "extensive", and "eduring", Chetnik collaboration was also described as "tactical", "selective", "hopelessly compromising", and if you'll note - "progressive" i.e. "(ever) increasing in extent or severity" (which is btw a very basic piece of information, on par with the non-existence of "regional Chetnik-Partisan alliances"). None of that contradicts either Tomasevich or Ramet in any sense (if necessary I can quote Merriam-Webster on that too :)), and neither is the overall message of the authors fundamentally different. We can hardly expect five different authors to use the exact same wording, but "conflicting"? certainly not.

The bottom line is that you're pushing very strongly for the exclusion/marginalization of Tomasevich and Ramet. I suspect because you perceive them as biased and "anti-Chetnik", as a consequence of myself bringing them up, but do not wish to openly make that claim because you lack backing. The sources, while present in the article from old edits, are not included (or are very underrepresented) in all of your proposals and drafts. Why should we not use the wording quoted from these sources, as was suggested? I think you'll have to do better than going "beyond systematic", whatever that means. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing my position--I'm not seeking to exclude any source, but rather to introduce balance by acknowledging that other sources disagree with Ramet and Tomosevich. Your use of Ramet, for example, is extremely selective. And I will once again ask that you refrain from commenting on motives and focus on content. Your continuing focus on who is pro serbian and who is not is extremely tiresome. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its interesting how your post manages to claim I am anti-Serbian without saying so. Impressive. I shall make myself clear for the record: I do not believe that the distinctions between Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins are worthy of notice on the larger scale, and I consider them primarily based on religion. Rather the four are, in my opinion, varieties of the same people, formed through a different historical background. For future reference, the term you are looking for is "pro-Chetnik" (or rather "anti-Direktor" in some cases ;)).

If, at this point, you seriously still wish to claim you are unbiased, you should at least explain why is it that you've excluded so much (virtually all) information from Tomasevich and Ramet in your drafts, that would have a negative impact on Draza Mihailovic's image (such as his collaboration during Fall Weiss). Otherwise, any such claims are devoid of all credibility imo.

Now then. Firstly, you have not shown any disagreement or contradiction in the sources whatsoever. At best, Tomasevich (and Ramet) simply include information you did not find mentioned in the sources you favor. In the above case specifically, as far as "systematic and extensive" is concerned, there is demonstrably no contradiction at all. Yet you continue to discuss as if there is.

Secondly, it is a fact that you favor certain sources while excluding others and that can be seen easily at a glance at any one of your drafts and proposals. When the suggestion is made to include Tomasevich and/or Ramet to the proposal, thus "introducing balance" - you oppose it every time. A clear pattern has long since emerged.

Thirdly, you have not yet acknowledged that you were wrong on the issue of alleged Chetnik-Partisan alliances post-1941. Or that the progressive nature of Chetnik collaboration is sourced (by yourself, ironically in the same post where you dispute it). By ignoring issues, or I should say sourced facts, you are not helping the progression of the discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I must say I was frustrated (in the time prior to starting to contribute here) with what I consider lack of focus here. Surely the way these talk pages have been set up is to put up quality sources, weigh their value and arrive at a consensus position based on that value that can be entered into the article? Have I misunderstood the rules?

One of the things that appears to be lacking here is weighting of sources. Ramet, Milazzo, Roberts and Tomasevich are all, imo, quality sources on this topic. However, that doesn't mean they are equal, or that all the primary source material that they reflect is equal. If Tomasevich or anyone else makes an observation about a fact in issue in this article, then that is relevant to this discussion. However, if that observation is not based on a quality primary source with limited scope for bias to have crept in (such as German or Italian military records), and Roberts or someone else makes an observation that IS based on such a source, then it is very hard to accept that they are of equal weight. A great example of this is the records of the trial of Mihailovic and his fellow Chetniks. The trial has been criticised (quite accurately in my view) as a show trial. Given this, observations made by anyone, reputable or not, which is solely based on these records and the statements attributed to Mihailovic at the trial or during his pre-trial interrogation, must be given appropriate weight (not much in my view). Could we get down to 'tin tacks' with this stuff? How about we look at the inline referencing of the quotes that editors are proposing should be relied upon, and discuss the appropriate weight they should be given. I am not committed to a particular POV on this article, I just want it to reflect the sources (with appropriate weight).

I'll start this off. On p.246 of Tomasevich, where the 'systematic and enduring' quote comes from, Tomasevich does not use any inline referencing to support his observation. But as he uses the phrase 'as described in this study', we can fairly assume that it is his overall view based on all the sources he has used in his research on the Chetniks. Given his use of a range of primary sources is impressive, and some have not been accessed by some of the other sources we have accepted as quality sources for this article, in particular examples of collaboration drawn from German and Italian military records, in the absence of high quality evidence that he misinterpreted those sources, I would give Tomasevich's observation considerable weight.

What I would really like to see is a conflicting quote from Roberts or one of the other quality sources, with commentary regarding the quality or otherwise of the primary sources he used to justify his observations, whether he used an inline reference for his observation, and what it was. How about it, Nuujiin? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you want to give Tomašević "considerable weight" as seems that the main goal is to include "systematic" or similar wording to wrongly give the impression that they collaborated all the time. Quite obvious and... wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about FkpCascais, and I will not engage in this nonsense about what my goal is. I have stated my goal, that I want the article to reflect the sources with appropriate weight. I have NOT said that I thought the Chetniks collaborated all the time. The 'systematic and enduring' quote is from Tomasevich (whom I give considerable weight), and I've identified the page and discussed the referencing. It does not give the impression that the Chetniks collaborated 'all the time', as that is not what it says. 'Systematic and enduring have their own meanings, and do not mean, individually or together, 'all the time'. How about you do me the same courtesy in relation to your unreferenced statement that the Chetniks did not collaborate systematically? Where are your source(s)? What references did they use for their observation(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or even provide some reasons why you consider Tomasevich's view should not be given 'considerable weight', as you appear to indicate he should not. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich's The Chetniks, to quote the American Historical Association, is the most complete and best book about the Chetniks ever to be published. That is to say, "better" than the others :). And has received more academic praise than any of our sources here - indeed, many actually cite it. The really impeccable credentials of the publication are the primary reason why I selected it to research these difficult, obscure and controversial issues in the first place years ago, and why I quote it more frequently than any other reference. Unfortunately, my usage and support of the source alone seems to have been enough for users Nuujinn and Sunray to support drafts that completely ignore huge amounts of information from it - overruling any objections through sheer numerical superiority, and with such success that it has shaken my confidence in the scientific foundations of Wikipedia itself.

FkpCascais, however, is here simply to defend the Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic, as always. The interesting fact is that, while nobody has proposed the inclusion of such a statement ("systematic" does not mean "all the time"), the Chetniks most certainly did, in fact, collaborate continuously ("all the time") in one region or another from late 1941 and early 1942 - up until the end of the war. The most that can be said is that they did not collaborate everywhere, all the time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevic is one of the sources, which by the way is the one choosing the hardest way to describe them. Editors wanting to make a point obviously like extreme views versus other more objective way of describing the same issue. Peacemaker, we have been dealing for long time now with selective choosing of sources to find a way to insert the worste possible language to describe the movement, so nothing new here... I also demonstrated how they engaged in resistance activities trought the war (in this region, or that, as direktor says...) so we have to be objective on this. And yes, "systematic and enduring" is not exactly the same as "all time", but quite convenient to describe one POV negative towards the movement. I am being objective, and Nuujinn´s version is quite close to it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. I don't understand your first sentence. It may just be the punctuation, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you reword it so I can understand what you are saying? There are three things in Nuujiin's recast lede that I fail to understand. The first is: the lack of a mention of Mihailovic. The organisation that is named in the lede was formed by him, and it should be attributed to him, whether the movement was homogenous or not. Second: the use of the term 'independently' in relation to collaboration. There are several excellent sources for Mihailovic's control over various (but not all, and not at all times) Chetnik detachments who collaborated. My view is that given the sources from which this information is drawn, the word 'independently' is not justified. I am not suggesting M knew about, agreed to, or controlled all of the collaboration that occurred, but he did know about, agree to, or control some of it. There are many high quality sources for this, and the instances include his control over Chetniks detachments operating within the NDH that collaborated with the Italisns (which comes from German military records), and the collaboration with the Italians during Fall Weiss (German and Italian military records along with his own description of his involvement in that operation). Third: including in the lede the reference to a short period of cooperation between some Chetniks and some Partisans (and even a supporting reference) is inappropriate given that the lede should give an overview of collaboration (or not) by Chetnik detachments, not single out one occasion where they fought the Germans alongside the Partisans. To be fair, it should probably say that after several months of fitful cooperation with the Partisans by Chetnik detachments in some areas, most detachments were eventually compromised through collaboration to varying degrees with the Axis and/or their quisling regimes in Serbia or the NDH. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Among the sources we have been working with, Tomasevic is definitely the one choosing the hardest tone to describe the relation between Chetniks and Axis forces. Now, regarding the concerns you express here, I see no problem in discussing them, but either way, Nuujinn´s version beats the previous one as it is more precise and less controversial and one sided. Now, having Mihailovic mentioned can be easily worked out, although he didn´t "formed the Chetniks", but the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, which came out to be considered part of the Chetnik movement and labeled as "Chetniks" troughout the war. I agree with you on this, as it is inevitable that the sources refer mostly to the Mihailovic movement as simply "Chetniks", and because of their size and importance the article naturally focuses way more in them, rather then on marginal Pecanac one. Now, the rest is where we don´t agree. The article deals in detail with the collaboration issue, being their resistance efforts clearly the ones being more ignored here, so why the major mission in labeling in the worste possible way in any chance? That ends up not being objective and POV. After all, Chetniks and Partisans didn´t stoped cooperating because of collaboration, but because of their major ideological divergences and goals. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fkp swoops in with a post with so many problems I don't know where to start. Deja vu.

• That is your own personal impression and personally I am not interested to hear it. You may feel free to repeat it another 20 times if you feel inclined to do so, but that alone will not change the standing of any source in even the slightest way.

• Draza Mihailovic founded a movement known as the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army", and later renamed it for propaganda purposes. Perhaps the word "Chetnik" had something to do with them being "labeled as Chetniks".

• The Chetniks and Partisans stopped cooperating because on 1 November 1941 Draza Mihailovic ordered his forces to attack the Partisan headquarters in Užice (hoping to kill Tito), while the two movements were jointly holding a front against the Germans. He did so after dispatching two of his aides (Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović) two days before on 28 October - to inform the Germans that he was willing to (quote) "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". And that's the whole story. In other words, the Partisans were quite correct in stating that the conflict between them started due to "Chetnik treachery".

• Pecanac's tiny force of a few thousand, disbanded after 2 yaers, is utterly insignificant. There is no question whatsoever that "Chetniks" in the context of WWII refers to the Mihailovic Chetniks. That can easily be verified with evidence of sources usage of the term. Indeed, the term "Chetniks" in any context primarily refers to the WWII Chetniks of Draza Mihailovic. And the text makes it clear who's Chetniks it talks about.

• As for their marginal resistance activities, feel free to expand the article in that respect. But be sure you will not be removing any sourced information from the article on any such faulty basis. Nuujinn perhaps said it best when he quoted Milazzo (p.182): "The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order." We should definitely include Milazzo's assessment of their resistance, unless some contradicting assessment can be presented.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously not me having problems here...

They are refered as "Chetniks" because they were found as a Chetnik movement, so? My point was just to clear that Mihailovic didn´t "found the Chetniks", something that wasn´t clear in Peacemaker´s words.

Chetniks and Partisans didn´t stoped cooperating because of "collaboration" as Peacemaker indicated. Your explanation confirms my post.

Pecanac force was minor but I beleave that not even one scholar describes them as "utterly insignificant"... Anyway, we kind of agree on this as well.

"Marginal resistance"? Source that if you can, otherwise is your extremely perjurative POV which unables you to edit this subject objectively. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not you, its your post. Don't put words in my mouth.

• Mihailovic did found the Chetniks during WWII, and that was quite plainly Peacemakers meaning. We are not discussing the Balkan Wars here. Also, that was obviously not your point, your point was that the "Chetniks came to be considered part of the Chetniks", which makes no sense, and they were (quote) "labeled" as such.
• My post explains that was an arguable statement. Mihailovic dispatched his aides with offers to place himself at the Germans' disposal prior to attacking his erstwhile allies.
• "Chetniks" in the WWII context refers to the Mihailovic Chetniks, do you seriously challenge that? :)
• I actually included the source in the post above. Marginal resistance activity. Please be more careful.

You are edit-warring to remove a long-standing, sourced lede segment, that was in the article for literally years now, in spite of active opposition on the talkpage. And you're pushing User:Nuujinn's version of the lede, also without consensus and in spite of opposition. In addition, you're blatantly misquoting sources by simply placing them where you feel like. You already recently blanked content from this article, in spite of opposition and without consensus through WP:EDIT-WARRING. You will NOT be allowed to do so again. Its the weekend you know, and now I actually have time to bring to light this new "method" you and Nuujinn are using to push your changes through.

Nuujinn's lead changes are opposed on the basis of bias through omission, with sources to back that up. Discuss here on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker was probably refering to the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, I was just checking it.

"We are not discussing Balkan Wars here". Oh no? Why not? Because some editors are only interested to edit the collaboration issue on this article. FYI Chetniks article includes Balkan Wars as well.

"Marginal resistance" and "a marginal sort of resistance activity" (and read it in context) are different. You are the one purpously changing the meaning to diminish the meaning, so it is not me not being carefull. You are making a wrong interpretation. Check it yourself. FkpCascais (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard of the edits, the version you defend was allways challenged and highly POV including unsourced statements and selective decontextualised use of sources. You edit warred for 2 years to keep your version of collaboration description, so it means it was never stable neither long-standing as it was allways disputed by numerous editors. FkpCascais (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Marginal resistance activity" (which is what I said) and "Marginal sort of resistance activity" are actually not different in any way. And the context does not change the author's meaning in the slightest.
• No. The version doers not have any unsourced statements whatsoever, and the sources are not used in a selective or de-contextualised manner. The text is sourced fully and in accordance with WP:V requirements.

Discussion of this sort is useless. You just make unfounded, uncorroborated, and plain untrue statements, and then you repeat them over and over again. All you do is attempt to somehow "relativize" plain and simple sourced statements and facts through demagoguery. This sort of arguing has never helped you, and will not help you now. I seriously think people actually count on you writing these sort of posts and derailing any meaningful discussion through off-topic and vague exchanges with myself. Please read the lede proposal and explain why you are opposed to the addition of sourced facts from Tomasevich and Ramet therein. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn already explained to you the problems about your version and how it fails in objectiveness. In the meantime I made an edit in your version that bring more neutrality to the lead section, but seems you allways find a problem. You already demonstrated here by your previous comments that you are editing the article with only one purpose and seems you will allways create endless problems to any attempts to bring neutrality to the article. Now please stop your personal attacks against me. FkpCascais (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You'll leave the discussion to Nuujinn - you'll just edit war when called upon. You two have been reported (and for previous edit-warring/section blanking as well). The problem, you see, is that Nuujinn's "explanations" (as you choose to call them) are demonstrably faulty, incorrect, and even self-contradictory. They do not, in any conceivable way, constitute a reasoning that justifies the exclusion of sourced information, and indeed, whole entire sources. Nuujinn has been rebutted, and has not continued to discuss. I refrained from introducing additional information only out of politeness. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You just make these posts of yours with all wrong facts hoping someone from ANI will read them and buy your version of facts. Direktor, no one called me, I made a mediation request on this subject remember? And Nuujinn has not left the discussion because he gave up (dear Lord, you prooved him wrong lol) but because he has more life then being here discussing with you. Regarding the rest, seems more like you are analising your own version when describing Nuujinn´s one... You just edit-war hoping you´ll get it trough (your last revert on this article was your 80th, 80th revert!!!!!!!), and when you see it doesn´t go that way, you make all efforts to find some other ways (report this, that, etc.). Your version is prooven wrong, removed from the related article at mediation, and you have no support from any established user, but rather all established users (including the mediator and all admins involved) oppose you. Just see the number of users you edit-warred on this article. And most importantly, the sources do not support you, but they do Nuujinn´s version. So, good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. – What reference do you rely on to support your contention that Tomasevich has the 'hardest tone' of all the sources? He is one of very few to make full use of the German and Italian military records that are available. This may have resulted in him being a little more critical of various Chetnik detachments regarding collaboration, but that might just be because his evidence for it is of better quality and unlikely to be biased. I fail to see why that would reduce his quality as a source unless this is a POV issue because an editor personally doesn't like his conclusions. His is not an extreme view, in fact it is one of the most widely respected in academic circles. I don't rely solely on him, as there is some very interesting and relevant work that has been done by other authors, some time ago and even more recently, but he remains a stand-out. I am not aware of any credible review that says otherwise. Please reference one if you have one, otherwise please back off on Tomasevich. – My reference to including M was in the second para of the lede. My point was that he should be mentioned because he formed the Chetnik Detachments in the Fatherland and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. Happy to provide references for this, from Milazzo, Roberts, Ramet or Tomasevich, you choose. But I note your apparent agreement that M should be mentioned in the lede, so I will draft a revised sentence for further discussion here. – I really don't understand what you are saying in the sentence that begins 'The article deals in detail...'. What Chetnik resistance efforts are you referring to? Operation Halyard? Collection of intel on German troop positions and movements? That's a little different in scope and scale from the collaboration of Chetnik detachments with the Italians in the NDH or during Fall Weiss. In what way is it lacking objectivity or POV pushing to note that many or most Chetnik detachments collaborated to some extent by the end of the war? Many examples have been sourced on this talk page on multiple occasions by other editors, but I am happy to do it in detail myself if necessary. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, there are many issues here. We have been discussing this for 2 years now. And resistance was not only Operation Halyard, lol. All these exact issues were discussed at leght during the mediation discussions of very related Draza Mihailovic (see talk pages, including obviously archives and mediation pages). I´ll come back to you tomorow. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. I object to the condescending tone. I have been following this discussion for months, and have read all of the archives on the Mihailovic page, the linked quotes, mediation etc, many more than once. I must say I glazed over several times with some of the nonsense that passed for proper discussion and with the unsourced POV pushing, but I made it all the way through to bring myself up-to-date before I came on here. I have copies of all the key references and have studied WW2 Yugoslav history for over 15 years. I have not read a single credible criticism of Tomasevich on this article talk page or that of Mihailovic. So my comment about backing off Tomasevich stands. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

How is this for a re-draft of the relevant sentence to insert Mihailovic?

The movement formed by Draža Mihailović in 1941 was initially named the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" (Četnički odredi jugoslovenske vojske) and was later renamed the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО), though the original name remained the most common in use throughout the war, even among the Chetniks themselves.

If other editors consider there is a need for inline referencing for Mihailovic forming the movement being referred to here (in 1941), I will include one. It seems unnecessary to do so, as I believe it is undisputed, but I certainly am happy to include one if anyone wants it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, that sounds fine to me, although according to Roberts, "In order to dissociate himself from the Cetniks who collaborated with the Germans, Mihailovic at first called his movement the "Ravna Gora Movment" However, as the other Cetniks became mere adjuncts of the occupying forces the name Cetnik was once again associated with Mihailovic". (page 21-22). I also took the liberty of inserting an arbitrary break above, since the section was getting long. Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I'm in the middle of moving my SO in and prepping the house she was in for sale, along with some major landscaping. In regard to "What I would really like to see is a conflicting quote from Roberts or one of the other quality sources, with commentary regarding the quality or otherwise of the primary sources he used to justify his observations, whether he used an inline reference for his observation, and what it was," I'm a bit confused since we're not really in a position to evaluate at a low level how a reliable source came to a given conclusion. That being said, Tomosevich is very fine source, and I'm not opposed to any statements that can be sourced to him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call regarding the arbitrary break. As far as the various names of the movement/organisation we are talking about, Tomasevich says that "Ravna Gora Movement" was a name used by Chetniks to describe themselves (he does not give it the status of an official name as Roberts does) (Vol 1, p.123), and observes the progression of names as 'The Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army', then 'Military-Chetnik Detachments', then from January 1942, when M was appointed Minister in the government-in-exile, it became 'Yugoslav Army in the Homeland' which it remained for the balance of the war (Vol 1, p.125). I certainly don't have a problem with including 'The Ravna Gora Movement' as a common usage as well. However, and I m at a disadvantage here in respect of my language skills, there appears to be a (possibly) semantic difference between Tomasevich's translation of one of the names and the one used in the current article. Bear with me and I will do my best with this. Essentially the difference is that in the article the word 'otadzbini' is translated as 'Fatherland' and Tomasevich translates it as 'Homeland'. Which is it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I beleave both are correct. Literarely translated would be "Fatherland", as the root of Otadžbina is Otac (English: Father) but "Homeland" would be perhaps more correct in context. FkpCascais (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you are both happy with 'Homeland' in context, and the insertion of Mihailovic, I propose the following edit:

The movement formed by Draža Mihailović in 1941 was initially named the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" (Četnički odredi jugoslovenske vojske) and was later renamed the "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland" (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО) . The original name remained the most common in use throughout the war, even among the Chetniks themselves, although 'The Ravna Gora Movement' was also used by them when referring to the movement formed by Mihailovic (Tomasevich, Vol.1, p.123). Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the above was ever seriously in question, but its good to have resolved something at least. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that users Nuujinn and FkpCascais have WP:EDIT-WARRED their changes into the article without consensus, regardless of any objections here on the talkpage, it will be interesting to note the level of cooperation said users would be willing to show in actually achieving an agreement on this issue (now that they do not really need to, that is).

Once again, there are serious inaccuracies in the text, and serious issues with the omission of assessments of Chetnik collaboration and resistance by some of the "best" sources available to us.

• Chetnik collaboration was "progressive" (Milazzo p.182), i.e. increasing through time. Unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it. This fact should to be mentioned in the lede (as it had been for several years).
• Chetnik resistance activities were described as "marginal" (also Milazzo p.182). Equally, unless someone can provide a contradicting assessment in the sources, there is no reason to exclude it.
• Various adjectives used by authors to directly describe Chetnik collaboration are "systematic" (Tomasevich and Ramet), "extensive" (Ramet), "enduring" (Tomasevich), "tactical" (Milazzo), and "selective" (Milazzo) (and, if you will, "hopelessly compromising"). I would suggest using "systematic and selective", with Ramet's assessment also included in some way, so as to cover all the sources.

The perceived problems with Nuujinn's proposal are as follows:

• Chetniks and Partisans did not cooperate anywhere or at any time after they became enemies on 1 November 1941. This is a grave error, and the text should not suggest anything of the sort.
• Nuujinn's draft states that the most Chetnik detachments "collaborated independently". "Independently" is, from what sources we have seen, Nuujinn's own assessment on the nature of Chetnik collaboration, and is seriously contradicted by sources such as Tomasevich, which bring forth, for the best example, Draza Mihailovic's own personal admission that he commanded such "independently" collaborating Chetniks in joint operations with Italian and German forces during Fall Weiss.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Small steps, DIREKTOR. I know my initial points were minor, but from small things, big things grow. I too am keen to have more discussion on the wording and supporting sources that have been used in the recast lede. I am happy to go through what has been recast in an incremental way in order to get changes agreed by the key editors here so that no-one reverts. If we have a point in the lede that could be re-stated in a NPOV and more accurate way in the body of the article, then I suggest we get agreement as we go. I am not keen on a broad sweeping approach to editing this, as I just don't see how any consensus will ever be built that way. If Nuujiin and FkpCascais are happy with the edit I proposed, I will whack it in there and we can move on to something more interesting... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, I am OK with your edit proposal. Lets see where can be placed, and then see how the lead flows and if it needs any minor adjustements.

@DIREKTOR, if I remember well, I think we all agreed that Chetniks increased their resistance activities by the end of the war in order to regain their possition among Allies as main resistance movement, so only that by itself breaks down the "ever-increasing collaboration" theory. Not to mention the fightings in 1943 and Allied rescuing activity, that one more correctly described as "ever-increasing" by the evolution of events.

Also, please go read the sentence I asked you to read back then. Milazzo doesn´t say that Chetniks resistance was "marginal", but that they engaged in a marginal type of resistance, something very different from what you want to present, and I could even go as far as saying that those precise words source their active resistance (whatever the type, and marginal does not mean quantity, but type of fighting strategy).

Also, please notece that the current lead covers both, resistance and collaboration, but excludes any extreme wording, so no reason for panic for no side direktor. FkpCascais (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit re: M and The Ravna Gora Movement done. I would like to get into a discussion regarding WP:IRS in the lede. I consider that in order to meet the requirements of WP:IRS in the context of the disputed nature of the article, we should be looking for better and more detailed references that a brief BBC online article (albeit written by a RMA Sandhurst academic, but with no inline referencing and no mention of Milazzo, Ramet or Tomasevich in the bibliograpy) and a book written in French for which I haven't been able to locate any reviews in English. Does anyone know if Buisson's book is even available in English? It isn't available on Amazon or Book Depository. If not, then WP:NONENG applies. We must be able to locate better sources than these for the relevant facts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your edit, I am perfectly fine with it. There is only one issue: it should mention that Chetniks were formed earlier, in 1904 and that they were active in previos wars as well. For reasons of disputed sections we have been completely focused on WWII events, however they were active since almost half a century earlier in important war theatres, certainly worth mention and also not to misleade as if it the Chetniks begin with Mihailovic. Perhaps just a single centence pointing this out would be good in my view. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and although there is already a reference to earlier conflicts, I don't see a problem with revising what is there as long as it is brief and sourced. The article is about the Chetniks/Chetnik Movement per se, not just the WW2 Chetniks (although they predominate in the article for obvious reasons). Following the same logic, I consider we should remove 'Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland' from the first sentence of the first para, as that term is a WW2 one only. How they fit in to the overall scheme of things is already well covered in the next para of the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. We should emphasize in the lede that we are discussing the Mihailovic Chetniks of WWII, by far the most (in)famous organization to carry the Chetnik name. Even though previous manifestations are very obscure indeed compared to the WWII movement, the Chetnik tradition does in fact originate at an earlier date. It should be noted though, that the term "Chetniks" is virtually synonymous with the Mihailovic Chetniks of WWII, in any context.

@FkpCascais, regarding your challenging Milazzo. Firstly. once again, collaboration is one thing - resistance another. An increase in resistance does not indicate a lax in collaboration. Secondly, no we did not agree that the Chetniks increased their resistance activities near the end of the war. They did not, in fact, since near the end of the war they were falling apart. The single solitary case of note is Operation Halyard (which is not even a military conflict), but that in itself does not support your WP:OR conclusion that they generally started "resisting more" on the whole and as a faction. Thirdly, for general reference, the only thing that can "break down" any assertion presented in a source is - a contradicting source. Certainly not your own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH "conclusions". What you are saying is "even though the source says they collaborated increasingly, because of Halyard I assess that they resisted more, and therefore I assess that they could not possibly have increasingly collaborated."

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but would please stop presuming to challenge sources without sources. Its a waste of everyone's time, including yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Now then. We are in essence waiting for sources that might support the disputed aspects of Nuujinn's text, and sources that might be a basis for disputing the proposed additions. We have been for days now. I will be introducing any unchallenged changes into the article soon enough if the situation does not change. It is starting to look like there really is no basis in sources for any objections, and that the issue is being stalled. Nuujinn, please provide sourced evidence of Partisan-Chetnik cooperation post-November 1941 as soon as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, I've been back to Tomasevich a lot in the last few weeks. He (p.159) indicates (and it is clear from the context he is talking about eastern Bosnia in the winter of 41/42 here) that 'a few Partisan and Chetnik detachments, by mutual agreement among their commanders, continued to cooperate.' It is also clear from the following couple of pages that as a result of the B&H Partisan conference at Ivancici in early January 1942, the B&H Partisans accepted 'volunteer army detachments' of Chetniks who did not accept the Partisan political program and would not wear the red star. The non-Partisan-aligned Chetnik detachments in eastern Bosnia then successfully subverted five of six Partisan detachments in the region, including 'practically all detachments of the 'volunteer army' (ie the Partisan-aligned Chetnik detachments). This subversion occurred between between 20 February and the end of June 1942 at which point the Partisans in eastern Bosnia were in terrible shape and had to withdraw to western Bosnia. From that point on, I am not aware of any source that indicates any cooperation between Partisans and Chetniks. I might also note that two Chetnik detachments that cooperated with the Partisans in western Serbia in September/October 41 in fighting the Germans (led by Martinovic and Zecevic) went over to the Partisans shortly thereafter (Tomasevich p.141 & 145). So, I don't consider November 1941 to be a line in the sand. If I had one, it would probably be June 1942. How about we put something together that captures this complexity and see if we can get some agreement on it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was indeed aware of the defection of Partisan detachments to the Chetniks in Bosnia, but I was not aware that this was preceded by a period of cooperation. Nevertheless, what I would call those events as a whole is subversion into the Chetniks, rather than cooperation. We must be very careful to distinguish between defection from one movement into the other (which was a widespread phenomenon), and cooperation between the two warring movements (which only seems to have occurred on that one occasion). Indeed, whatever we call it, it seems rather a short-term and small exception to the rule. My problem with the Nuujinn version is that it inescapably implies this Chetnik-Partisan cooperation was war-spanning phenomenon depending on the Chetnik detachment in question, with a sort of misleading "Bad Collaborating Chetniks" vs "Good pro-Partisan Chetniks" dichotomy. What Nuujinn states, without any additional elaboration, is that "some Chetnik detachments cooperated with the Partisans".

Cooperation between the movements, as we have apparently established, was terminated after November 1941 (when they became enemies) - with a few exceptions, and brief exceptions at that. In all objectivity, in spite of admittedly being proven technically wrong in my assertion, I question whether this caveat is at all necessary in the lede. It will be difficult to explain properly without introducing several new sentences. That said, if we're ok with expanding the lede with a few sentences on their relationship with the Partisans, I suppose it could be done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a caveat along the lines of 'with a few brief exceptions' (if that is what you are suggesting) be included for the sake of NPOV. If we can get agreement on that here and it is supported by more detail in body of the article, I don't see any significant difficulty. On the other hand, I would also accept a couple more sentences in the lede to flesh out the Chetniks relationship with the Partisans a bit more. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then, agreed. That is indeed what I was suggesting. I have to say, nice work getting to the bottom this. Do you have any comments on other points above? Particularly the adjectives which seem likely to be a disputed point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the black/white dichotomy in regard to the Chetniks to which you refer is entirely your creation, and has nothing to do with what I would like to see in this article. As I have said, the phrase to which I object the most is "ever increasing", and I have yet to see a source for that. One problem I see is your insistence that we treat the Chentiks as "The Chetniks", as if they were a homogeneous group under a unified command, and I do not see that as the case. You also keep using the word "detachment", which is not a word I choose to use, as many Chetniks were formed as groups or bands acting independently. And if you continue to engage in personal attacks such as your repeated assertions of edit warring, I will take appropriate action.

Peacemaker, in regards to Buisson, I believe that is a source the JJG found. There are some french copies in the US, I've requested a copy through interlibrary loan. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is not polite to respond to someone's post without reading it. The incremental nature of Chetnik collaboration is a basic fact. As I have said three time already, you yourself actually brought forth a source that describes the Chetnik collaboration as a "progressive" phenomenon, meaning "increasing in extent or severity". Milazzo himself states on p.182 that "[the Chetnik movement was] progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities". The term the source uses is, I admit, more neutral, but the fact being described is very basic and beyond dispute.

• As for "The Chetniks", as you put it, we shall continue to use that term in the exact same manner as the sources do. I am not concerned with your own interpretations of "NPOV". In other words, we shall emphasize the heterogeneity of the movement in accordance with the sources, no more and no less. Since the exact level of said heterogeneity is in dispute, and differs in description and emphasis. Ramet, Tomasevichm, and Milazzo apparently, are all comfortable with referring to the Mihailovic Chetniks as a whole as "The Chetniks" when describing their collaboration. You have Milazzo up there, and here's Ramet for another example (p.145)

"Both the Chetniks' political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia."

• "Detachment" is a term used to translate the Serbo-Croatian word "odred", as in "Četnički odred". Its not a very good translation: "odred" does not really mean "detachment", the word does not imply the unit is "detached" from anything, and is very hard to translate accurately (perhaps "medium to small military unit" conveys the meaning better). But, again, we shall use it in such a way as defined by sources.

I did not write a single "personal attack" (see WP:NPA), and should you continue to make such baseless accusations for the sake of winning points in an argument, you may find yourself reported in turn for such constant and incessant slander (see WP:WIKILAWYERING). In future, if you have any real issues with a backing in policy, then please bring them up on my talkpage and keep the discussion here at least loosely focused on content. Though I suggest you bring forth some sources that support your position instead. You have not responded to most of the issues. Do I take it they are resolved? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You've made repeated accusations against me and others, here and elsewhere of tag teaming you and edit warring, and I regard those as "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." You've already reported me once this week--please, by all means, if you think I'm slandering you, do so again. And you may assume whatever you like, but as I've said, I'm busy in RL.

Yes, sources refer to the chetniks as the chetniks, but the cheniks were neither uniform nor homogeneous, and bands on the ground were often out of contact with their leadership and often worked for their own local goals. Ramet refers to the Chetniks as polycephaleous: "But by its very nature, the Chetnik movement was polycepaholous. thus even while some Chetnik leaders entered into collaborative relations with the Italaian and with the Nedic government, others--for example, those in Basnaska Krajina--'avoided any cooperation with the occupation regime'(207) Moreover, even where local Cheninks did collaborate, they did so on their own terms, not necessarily accomodating their activity to the priorities of their arms suppliers." And I note that in the quote you provided above, Milazzo uses the phrase "portions of the Chetnik movement". There's no doubt that collaboration did occur, but need to take care that it not be characterized here in a way that is not supported by sources. Discussing the events of 1943 Milazzo points out: Although the overall trend was toward collaboration, enough Chetnik groups made deals with, went over to the Partisans, or continued the old pattern of raids on nearby Croat and Muslim civilians to keep the occupation authorities permanently suspicious of all Serb leaders. As already indicated, the local heads often chose collaboration or made an armistice of sorts with the Germans only after they were forced to. Furthermore, although many individual armed groups came to terms with the occupation regime, collaborators of long standing, like Uros Drenovic, failed to reassert sort of central any sort of central direction.(57) Many armed detachements simply dissolved or pursued independent courses of action. In the vicinity of the Romanije Mountains, the Chetniks split up into pro- and anti-Partisan groups;(58) (Milazzo, p. 149) Milazzo suggests that even late in the war, neither the German nor the Chetniks were full and willing collaborations, and each used the other on a limited basis to achieve their own goals: The Chetnik leadership as long as it could hovered between resistance and collaboration. Mihailovic's subordinates in Serbia tried to come to terms with Nedic and Ljotic and even cooperated occasionally with the Germans against the Partisans, but Mihailovic would go no farther than calling off hostilities against the Germans and officially maintained an anti-Axis stand. As a result most of the officer's formations received no appreciable aid from the Germans, and the movement remained militarily helpless throughout the summer of 1944. The German command in Belgrade continued to stress that the Chetnik "movement is and remains hostile" and prohibited measures contributing to "even the partial renewal of the Mihailovic movement." Arms deliveries were to he made only "in very small quantities and "on a purely local basis."(35) (Milazzo, p. 170) We need to capture that fluidity and protean nature of the ebb and flow of resistance and collabaration--systematic and enduring yes, ever increasing, no, unless a source that directly supports that characterization can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you done ignoring Milazzo with regard to the progressive nature of Chetnik collaboration? Nothing above can even loosely be interpreted as contradicting that fact in any way, I hope you realize. "Ever-increasing" are my own words, I assume they can be viewed as biased in some way, but "progressive" is Milazzo. Chetniks were indeed being "progressively drawn into collaboration", and that statement is directly supported.

• The Chetniks. I am not seeing any basis for discussion or dispute here. I do not challenge the fact that the Chetniks were heterogeneous to a degree, but I believe you are trying to over-emphasize it. Why "over-emphasize"? Because you are suggesting we emphasize it where the sources, by and large, do not emphasize it. I propose, however, that the solution may be to use the phrase "collaboration within the Chetnik movement", rather than "collaboration of the Chetnik movement". But, as you yourself state (and Milazzo) in you lede draft, it must be made clear that this was a widespread, "systematic and extensive" phenomenon, involving the majority of the movement "within" which it was occurring. "Most Chetnik groups collaborated with the Axis to one degree or another" were your words I believe (deleted by User:FkpCascais).

• Chetnik-German collaboration as a phenomenon was hardly "protean", I disagree there completely. Nota bene: your last Milazzo quote is talking about the Chetnik leadership, not the movement as a whole. The whole thing can be described in one sentence: "they collaborated, but they didn't like it". Yes, the Germans got them with both the carrot and the stick ("collaborate and you get arms and supplies to fight the Partisans, you get to control your territories, but turn on us and you'll get wiped out for good"). And yes they were "in theory" opposed to them, but crucially, and this what we are talking about here - in practice the Chetnik movement collaborated with Nazi Germany. "The overall trend was toward collaboration."
  Nuujinn, this was officially the military of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (up until 1944 almost). Generally, one's army does not collaborate with the Nazi occupation of your country, that's engaged, to boot, in industrial mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of its civilians. Put you efforts at "relativization" into perspective.

And Nuujinn: I made no comments on personal behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can source Tomasevich for the word 'gradual' applied to overall Chetnik collaboration. I will hunt it up and post it in context here later today. Perhaps that is a word we can agree on. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I supose the intention is to present the collaboration as increasing in time (as if they started as resistance and ended collaborating more and more), but that is wrong. We all know that the peak of collaboration of Chetniks was with Italians, and that was more intense in the second quarter of the war, and remind all that Italians capitullated in September 1943, 2 years before the end of the war. Chetniks didn´t ever engaged in such level of collaboration as had with Italians with any Axis forces after 1943. These facts make any description of "progressive", "ever-increasing", "gradual", "growing" or anything similar, wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that I can see (if that was what we agreed) it could not be described in that way in respect of the Italians from November 1941 until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and then described in a different way for one or more periods after that. However, I might add that collaboration must surely include that with Axis-installed or supported quisling regimes such as Nedic's Serbia and the NDH as well as the formal Axis countries of Germany, Italy and their ally Bulgaria. The collaboration with the NDH in the German zone is described as 'an indirect form of collaboration' by Tomasevich, as Direktor observed some time ago. This is really complex, and I consider that broad sweeping statements either way will not cut it. We need to reflect the complexity yet achieve a NPOV. I would rather see a formulation in the lede that reflects the complexity and doesn't get into too much detail about who was up who and for what. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. I have to add that even if you don't personally agree with the words in that list, that matters not one iota on WP if they are supported by quality sources (some of us appear to be getting closer to limited agreement on some words from the sources, but we are obviously not there yet). I've noticed you write the word 'wrong' in your posts when disagreeing with another editor, usually preceded by some unsourced 'facts'. It is my understanding that it is a WP requirement that your contention of 'wrongness' be backed by sources (I'm new here and if there is a policy that says you don't have to do this, I'd be happy to read it and will pull my head in). Common sense dictates that on an article as disputed as this one, 'wrong' just doesn't cut it, and in fact is potentially a method of stonewalling any consensus between other editors without progressing the discussion in any substantive way. If you want your contentions to be taken seriously, it is my understanding that WP makes you responsible for citing sources to support them. I note that Nuujiin has discussed Milazzo in some detail above, and that Direcktor and Nuujiin are at odds about what parts of Milazzo might be used, and whether they are in context etc. I have indicated my support for some of Milazzo and Tomasevich. However, I don't have a sense of what sources you personally are relying on for your interpretations. I don't know if there is a rule about personal courtesy on WP, but I believe citing sources to support your contentions should be one of them, and personally would appreciate it if you extended that courtesy to me. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, there is a core policy regarding WP:CIVILITY, but that doesn't cover providing references to support arguments. I think it is accurate to say that editors are free to express personal opinions, but that those may ultimately be ignored if they are not supported by references from reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V, which in essence states very clearly that challenged assertions must be supported with sources. Simply repeating them incessantly can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE and may warrant some sort of mild intervention. If I recall, Nuujinn, you and Sunray responded to PRODUCER challenging your source (sans support) with some considerable aggression. Suffices to say such behavior can be very annoying in a factual debate. FkpCascais is not really discussing with posts of the above sort, but is merely stating his opinions over and over and over again, as is his wont. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, Nuujinn, you and Sunray responded to PRODUCER challenging your source (sans support) with some considerable aggression. Nothing about content, just snarky comment. Meh. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was answering the question on policy, as your response seemed somewhat inadequate. The purpose of the post was not to address content directly, so I am not impressed by your realization of that. As for "snarky", well, anyone can see PRODUCER was all but sanctioned by your admin friend for repeating an unsupported opinion on one of your sources. Call it what you will. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content of the article and cease making comments about editors' conduct, motives, desires, etc. If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about another editor's conduct, avail yourself of the appropriate venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I beleave we already agreed that the strongest link of Chetniks was with Italians. Do we need to discuss this too, I mean, are you challenging that? I am discussing in good faith, so were you initially. We are free to interpret sources and mention conclusions. If we agree we should not loose more time with that, but if you challenge anything I said I will gladly bring sources for it, just tell me what exactly you challenge from my words? With regard to collaboration description, as your own words say, we should avoid oversimplification of these complex issues, so by your own words we can conclude that simplifiying Chetniks collaboration to "growing" or anything similar, is wrong (yes, wrong, because it doesn´t apply to the entire period of WWII as it looks in the version edited by DIREKTOR). Btw, collaboration with NDH occured in mid war period, with Germans was never strong, and, collaboration with Bulgarians? I am unaware that Mihailovic had contacts with Bulgarians (specially not "friendly" ones), but perhaps you know something I don´t? FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn. Again: bring up your concerns on my talkpage, or report me, but cease trying to win points with these constant slanderous "warnings" and "accusations".

@FkpCascais. It has been explained to you, several times. You are challenging what Milazzo and Tomasevich say regarding the progressive increase in Chetnik collaboration? then do not tell us what you think, but instead provide sources that directly contradict them. There is quite plainly no "oversimplification", since the sources are being quoted directly. Be careful to avoid bringing up your own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and do not draw your own conclusions as to what "must have been" because of "this" or "that".

We cannot "conclude" anything (WP:OR), there is no "oversimplification", nothing is taken "out of context", the sources are referring to the entire World War II period, are not "selectively represented" etc. etc. These are nothing but rather obvious excuses you are using since you have no sources (as per usual), and are trying to stall, disrupt and otherwise hinder the entry of sourced facts you do not like through empty "demagoguery". As has invariably been the case with every single negative fact about the Chetniks for the past several years.

This has been going on for several days now. I must insist that you either bring up the "phantom sources" that are in direct contradiction to Milazzo or Tomasevich now - or cease WP:DISRUPTING this discussion. Otherwise I propose, as on Talk:Draža Mihailović, that all unsourced assertions such as those by yourself be simply ignored, as they are very much detrimental to the progression of discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, is this a joke or you decided to ignore all we discussed for 2 years on mediation? Are you really challenging the fact that the major collaboration occured with the Italians? What I am saying is not OR. We went trough this, remember? If pure facts (and sourced, as there are plenty of sources about Italian/Chetnik relation, and not comparable to the Chetnik/Axis post1943 relation) contradict some statement, sorry, but something is wrong there. Anyway, you don´t have more sources backing that, neither events confirm it. You just can´t grab one source, take it to extreme in interpretation, and demand it as a holy bible. Sorry, be objective.

Btw, it was Peacemaker who this time brought the idea that we should avoid oversimplification, so seems you have not been following the discussion. I would like to hear the opinion of Peacemaker and of other participants if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I apologise if you understood me wrong by saying the word "wrong". I never meant to say that you were wrong as a personal remark, I just try to be more direct in these discussions so we could more easily come to conclusions and move forword. It is just that events in time in this case don´t seem to come together so such a conclusion could be made. You can´t ask me for a source saying "Describing Chetnik collaboration with Axis as growing is wrong.", that is not the point. We, suposedly all, read and re-read all the sources used here, and if I recall well, DIREKTOR made a collection of all sources with any single mention of collaboration, and I don´t recall anything indicating a time-period growing relation, rather than this source, which seems to be used by some users to give a romantisized impression that Chetniks "started as resistance (as that really can´t be refuted), but ended up as collaborators!". FkpCascais (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You are saying "I judge that because collaboration with the Italians did not occur after the Italian capitulation, the sources are wrong(!) in saying that collaboration in general was increasing overall throughout the war". This is the very definition and a textbook example of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, i.e. "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". You are not a scholar and do not get to draw conclusions and write generalized "assessments" - in any shape or form. Second of all, if sources say the Chetniks were "progressively drawn into collaboration", this is what we are going to write, and your claims of "extreme interpretation" in quoting a source directly(!) are very obvious nonsense. You are NOT called upon to judge whether word-renowned published experts are "wrong" or not in their description.

So to put it plainly, Wikipedia policy forbids you to draw any conclusions of your own, whether they be based on Operation Halyard, the Italian capitulation, or whatever else you may happen to think of (and I'm sure you have other contingencies). And especially if said WP:OR "conclusions" are in opposition to what the sources say. If you wish to challenge the conclusion in the sources, you need a directly contradicting, overall assessment of Chetnik collaboration from a source. If you do not have one (and you don't) - its "case closed". Get over it please, stop being disruptive, and spare us the trouble of explaining this to you for the fourth time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies all, my ISP is playing up, and my iPhone doesn't 'do' editing, so I may not be on here with anything substantive for a couple of more days. Just in case anyone was wondering where I'd got to... Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Back. Gotta love the personal hotspot on the iPhone... and the iPad. Anyway, I'm afraid I've missed out on putting in my 'two cents worth' on a few things, so you're just going to have to bear with me (or ignore me). I'm not a fan of long posts, so I'll try to put these in the right sections and be brief.

@FkpCascais: just for the sake of completeness, your question re: DM and any relationship he had with the Bulgarians is a complex question and should probably be dealt with in the DM article. However, as I mentioned the Bulgarians here, I feel I should be prepared to back up my assertions as far as the Chetniks (not DM) are concerned. In Jul 44, at least 10,000 Chetniks under the command of Dragutin Keservic and Radoslav Racic cooperated with German, Bulgarian and Serbian Nedic trops during Operation Trumpf in southern Serbia, and were supplied with ammunition and some arms (Tomasevich Vol 1 p408). A significant undertaking by any standard.

also, as far as Chetnik collaboration with the Germans was concerned, if we just take Serbia as an example, there were four formal agreements concluded between them in late 1943, one of which extended into February 1944. The longest standing and most comprehensive was between the Commander in Chief of south-east Europe (von Weichs) and Colonel Jevrem Simic, Inspector of all Chetnik forces. Pretty high level agreements, not some local informal arrangement. (Tomasevich Vol 1 p321-323. Aside from these formal agreements, there were several modus vivendi agreements which carried on from this time into 1944, German liaison officers were posted to several Chetnik headquarters in Serbia (including that of General Miroslav Trifunovic (overall commander of DM Chetnik forces in Serbia), including one (Major Weyel) who coordinated the operations of the Racic, Keserovic and Kalabic Chetnik detachments against the Partisans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor. I have reverted your most recent edit because you removed the reference to the 'Ravna Gora Movement' which has been discussed here. I've seen no opposition to it from you or anyone else to this point. Let us know what your issue is with it, and we can discuss. It is sourced from Tomasevich and I believe it is a relevant and useful inclusion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)