Talk:Chetniks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First line of lede

The current version is:

• The Chetniks or the Chetnik movement or Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (Serbian: Четници, Četnici, Turkish çete pronounced [tʃɛ̂tniːtsi]) were a Serbian nationalist and royalist paramilitary organization operating in the Balkans before and during World Wars, mostly known for their participation in the Yugoslav Front of World War II.

I suggest we consider changing it to:

• Chetnik is a name chosen by a number of Serbian nationalist or royalist militia or paramilitary organizations operating in the Balkans during the 20th century. Although the term has been used to designate a variety of groups, military and civilian, throughout the century, it is most closely associated with groups formed during World War II, which primarily engaged in military activities against the Partisans.

The notion is that this wording opens up more modern usages of the term, as well the earliest usages which predate WWI. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea sounds very good. Some minor issues could be Chetnik which is a singular of Chetniks, thus never used for a group (something like Marines, you´ll never start the article by saying Marine..., so perhaps we could leave it in plural? Then, what you think if we change in the last sentence in the part talking about Partisans the idea of "primarly engaged" by "rivalry" perhaps? (weren´t they primarly engaged in fighting Axis? And then they switched their attention towards Partisans...). FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a mistake imho to try an rework the first line on its own. Rather, lets have a go in this section at the entire first paragraph. Mind you, the only problem with the old first line is that someone butchered it by adding "or Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", no doubt for POV reasons (the version restored by FkpCascais was the one mangled and maimed by various Serbian IPs and and new users a while ago). WP:LEDE tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the lede should be a summary of the article. Nota bene: the Chetniks did not cease to exist between the three wars they participated in, but continued as two civilian organizations.

• Chetniks, or the Chetnik movement ([Четници, Četnici] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help), Turkish çete pronounced [tʃɛ̂tniːtsi]), were Serbian nationalist and royalist paramilitary organizations from the first half of the 20th century. The Chetniks were formed as a Serbian resistance against the Ottoman Empire in 1904, and participated in the First Balkan War, World War I, and World War II. Between the wars, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, they functioned in the form of two civilian organizations. The name is today most closely associated with the Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army, the World War II movement of Draža Mihailović, which was later renamed into the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (Jugoslovenska vojska u otadžbini, Југословенска војска у отаџбини; JVUO, ЈВУО).

Then the second paragraph, one we've worked it out, can handle the Mihailovic Chetniks with all the "who did they fight" issues. Somewhere below, in the last paragraph perhaps (corresponding with the article's layout), we can add that "Several modern Serbian paramilitary organizations, formed in the 1990s after the collapse of Yugoslavia, chose the name 'Chetniks', and consider themselves as the continuation of the Chetnik legacy". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Various Serbian IP´s? Which ones? The version I restored is the one from Nuujinn´s draft (and Nuujinn is vary far from being a Serbian IP)... Please direktor stop this pharse of an "army" (or, something) of Serbian users as I am the only (and quite lonely) Serbian here... FkpCascais (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is Nuujin's draft, FkpCascais. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you altered my proposal, I've restored it, please do not alter my posts again. I want to work on the lede one line at a time, since we have been at loggerheads thus far. You are certainly free to participate or not, but I would like to hear from other editors. I have added a bit about civilian groups per your concern. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to participate, Nuujinn. Now if you'll allow me to point out, it makes no sense whatsoever to discuss one sentence at a time, since the paragraph represents a particular topic. We may be "at loggerheads" - but not about the first sentence, or indeed, the first paragraph. It would be good of you to remember that the only difficult issues are 1) your removal of all mention of Chetnik ethnic cleansing and Greater-Serbianism (which Tomasevich describes in great detail as their primary objective), and 2) collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not allowing anything DIREKTOR, please don't twist my words. I'm trying to initiate a discussion amoung editors regarding the first line--from your response I take it that you are completely opposed to that attempt, and that's fine, but please do not attempt the derail the discussion before it it can begin. The first line could be a simple definition of the word. You brought up one particular objection and I tried to address it, if you have others I'd be glad to hear about them, but opposing the idea of drafting a line seems excessive. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted DIRKETOR's last edit as it is not based in any of the dicussions taken place here. I do not believe we have consensus for that version. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

These [1][2][3][4][5] are your edits entering non-consensus changes into the article in spite of talkpage opposition and by edit-warring. It seems pretty obvious we're past folowing WP:BRD on this article - thanks almost exclusively to you. That said, we can begin to do so once more if you'd consent to keeping the status quo version up. The problem is of course, you do not like the status quo version of years past [6], and you want your changes to remain on top.

The first paragraph is perfectly good and accurate, I see no reason for you delete it.

I am opposed to discussing the first sentence alone, since that simply makes no sense and is impractical. Furthermore, I am appalled at your evasive behavior regarding the remainder of the disputed points. Do I need to post them again? Your position lacks sources so instead of adjusting your position and compromising - you proclaim us to be "at loggerheads" and start trying to impose another, absurdly restricted topic of discussion? FkpCascais at least tried something with his OR, you just fell silent and let the discussion die down. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, be as appalled as you care to, and post whatever you like. But if some of us would like to work on a draft of the lede by working on one sentence at a time, I would ask you to not interfere with those efforts even if you care not to participate. I think that's a good way to try to move forward, and others might as well.

Yes, we are at loggerheads, as you've rejected out of hand a number of compromises I have put forward. And I've provided sources for what I've suggested, even though you refuse to acknowledge that. Your argument regarding status quo doesn't hold much weight, since consensus can change, and the lede has been in flux the last few months. And I ask again that you cease your constant accusations implying that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is often vandalized, sources are often removed or the text they support changed without consensus or adherence to their position - and you are a goodly part of that "flux". You can call it whatever you like, but the sourced status quo remains that which it was for years now.
• You had not put forward any "compromises" whatsoever, and had not adjusted your position to the sources in the slightest. When confronted with references you had simply fallen silent, and started this new thread(!). This is no way to discuss: kindly state your positions on the five disputed points, and be sure to enclose sources that directly and unambiguously support them as I'm sure we've all heard quite enough WP:OR for this month. Should you not do so at last, what other alternative is there than to consider them resolved? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Please note I directly addressed one of your concerns in the draft first line above. Please note that I've put up more than one version of the lede. If you wish to ask me a question, do so politely and I'll answer, but I'm not going to engage in the usual endless walls of text that discussions in which you are involved tend to spiral. Implying that other editors are engaging in OR or vandalism is not civil, please cease. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Meh"? :D Alright Nuujinn, I know how to use the copy-paste function: 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 (quote) "best" sources available to us.

• Chetnik collaboration was "progressive" (Milazzo p.182) and "gradual" (Tomasevich), 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.

And this is the proposed modification of your text:

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 engaged in marginal(Milazzo) resistance activities, 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 were progressively drawn into collaboration agreements(Milazzo, Tomasevich I) first with the Nedic forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in Montenegro and occupied Dalmatia, with some of the Ustase forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.(Tomasevich I p.196) While Chetnik collaboration reached "extensive and systematic"(Tomasevich I p.246; Ramet p.145) proportions, the Chetniks' themselves referred to this "policy of collaboration"(Ramet p.145) as "using the enemy".(Tomasevich I p.196)

I shall now politely curtsey, and ask you to be so kind as to respond to the points, lest we consider them resolved... meho. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day all, I just wanted to air my perspective on this.

Firstly, as far as the Balkan Wars are concerned in this article, Chetnik detachments (I am fairly reliably informed by a mate who has a Serbian background but is in the Australian Army, that the most appropriate English translation is 'companies' ie about 100-120 soldiers), also fought in the 2nd Balkan War against the Bulgarians. An overall source for this sentence in the first para of the lede is Tomasevich Vol 1 p116-117, in case anyone wants one. I'll add it myself once I get access to a real computer.

Secondly, I would not agree to 'rivalry' instead of 'primarily engaged' as proposed by FkpCascais. It just isn't supported by the sources.

Thirdly, I don't support the 'status quo' version of the lede linked by Direktor. In my view, it just does not reflect the complexity involved, and I am happy to provide sources once I have full computer access again. Please call me out on this as necessary.

Fourthly, @Nuujinn. I have significant issues with your proposed redraft of the 1st sentence of the lede which I will detail shortly. I believe it should stand as it is at present. I agree with Direktor that it should be dealt with by paragraph rather than by sentence. Each paragraph has a theme, and I consider we should try to come to a consensus on each paragraph/theme rather than end up with a disjointed approach as a result of going sentence by sentence. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. You needn't worry about sourcing the sentences in the lede--everything needs to be sourced, but anything in the lede should be dealt with in the main body as well, and having the reference there is fine. Also, we're not in a hurry--this article was part of a nearly two year mediation process involving a number of editors, the outcome of which I think it is fair to say DIREKTOR found less than satisfactory, and I doubt we'll be finished with it anytime soon. The article is a mess, and under the best of conditions it would take a very long time to sort it out. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, please do not further proliferate your gross misconceptions about the Wikipedia mediation process, and, more specifically, do not suggest the existence of phantom "outcomes" when there were none to speak of. You are merely trying to create an ethereal aura of "legitimacy" for the section which you wrote (alone). We are at all times free to change, edit, modify and refactor any text on this project. And the fact is, your text is very far from a fair representation of facts.

• Peacemaker, there's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem there. "Cheta" later came to mean "company" in the Yugoslav and Serbian army, replacing "kumpanija" (which was German in origin and therefore undesirable), but I believe that originally the "chetas" were not companies as such. To be sure, today in Serbia "cheta" means "company" (though not so elsewhere in ex-Yu, e.g. satnija in Croatia), hence the information provided by your friend, but I believe the usage of the term in that capacity is rather derived from the Chetniks than vice versa, i.e., I do not think that for the Chetniks' "cheta" was considered to be anything like a strictly defined military unit. I could be wrong, though.
• Agreed.
• Naturally. I also do not support the status quo version, Peacemaker, it was simply my suggestion that the status quo version be restored while the discussions are on over here, to prevent any edit-warring.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaming sections

I beleave that it would be objective to rename all sections from "collaboration" into "relation" as that way it would be possible to explore other aspects of relation between the intervenients. Also, the relation between Chetniks vs Germans, Italians, NDH, etc. was much much complex than just "collaboration", and it was named this way only because of the will of certain editors to expand only that aspect of the relation. FkpCascais (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The main relationship between the Chetniks and the Third Reich was collaboration. Jingiby (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree as well, of course. Sounds like POV weasel words to me. Almost like renaming the "Ethnic cleansing" section into "Ethnic conflict". The sources are very unambiguous with regard to the terms used to refer to these "relations". Maybe we should strike all mention of the word "collaboration" and replace it with "relations" (no pun intended)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, you were not active in these discussions. The relation between Chetniks and Axis was of declared war. The complexity must be reflected. FkpCascais (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"You were not active in these discussions"? Neither was User:Jean-Jacques Georges, for literally years now. Yet your response to his comment was "welcome, could you help here, please, seems that some sort of offensive is going on and I am quite lonely here..." :) The difference seems to be that Jingiby opposes you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant Jingiby's activity is in this context. I also disagree with changing the section titles from collaboration to anything else. It is what it is, and the collaboration of the Chetniks is a key issue supported by the sources in this article. That is why collaboration is in the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

JJG was part of the mediation. Jingby´s intervention here is obviously welcomed, but out-of-context and btw he made a biased comment without any scholar support... Third Reich, lol. FkpCascais (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The pot is calling the kettle black... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Notece how Chetniks are described here on bottom of bottom right of page 3. Royalist, pro-Allied and anti-communist. I beleave we are missing specially the "anti-communist" element in the lede.

With regard of exagerations of ultra-nationalism and ethnic cleansing, just see the way it is dealt here, on p. 278. This is NPOV approach. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that says they are "exaggerations", other than yourself that is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais. I have no problem with the inclusion of a reference to Chetnik 'anti-Communism' in the lede and the Formation and Ideology section, as long as it is NPOV, sourced and balanced with the other facets of the Chetnik ideology already there. Get one from a reliable source and we can discuss wording and where it would fit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I, but the problem is that their anti-communist ideology applies to WWII first and foremost. I suggest that it be added in the WWII section. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"...applies to WWII first and foremost." Wrong perception in my view. Monarchists were anti-communist ever since communists became politically active, and that includes the pre-1941 period as well. The King´s governament banned the KPY already in 1920/21, and the anti-communism among royalists is even older... Now, Chetniks may not have had direct involvement with communists in their supression, but they were certainly strongly on King´s side on this issue, no doubts. Thus no need to limit that perception to any time period, much less only to WWII. We really need to avoid focusing only on WWII, specially for this ideological sections. FkpCascais (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the Chetniks probably would have been anti-communists in 1904, had they had any contact with communism at all. The point is they didn't. We cannot class everyone we think would probably be anti-communist as "anti-communist", just because we think they would have been such. The Romans or the Aztecs probably also would have been decidedly "anti-communist". (The ban of the KPY has nothing to do with this.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins

I just expanded the origins section with some well-sourced material, and DIRKETOR immediately reverted my edits, and removed again the UNDUE tag on the article. I put the material back, given that the sources are good, and restored the tag since we clearly have a disagreement regarding due weight of issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, kindly refrain from nonsense, non-consensus edits, WP:EDIT-WARRING, and obvious POV WP:OVERTAGGING. I do not dispute your addition of sourced content, however:

• The entire section you edited covers the WWII movement, yet you added a WWII sub-sub-section there. I hope this is some sort of error on your part, but in either case please do not change the sectional organization of the article without prior discussion.
• On Wikipedia, we dot place tags to make ourselves feel better, but to actually resolve listed issues. See WP:OVERTAGGING: "It is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles. Adding more tags usually results in all of them being ignored. Focus your attention on the most important one or two issues." Furthermore, if you supposedly believe that a WP:UNDUE violation is a problem in the article - start a discussion on the issue, because apart from your deliberate omission of Tomasevich and Ramet from the lede and vast chunks of text, we have not had any WP:UNDUE discussions.
• Do not remove the note on the alternative translation without any reason.

In other words, do not list more than two tags, and discuss all tags you add. Tags that are not actively being addressed and are added only as a "feel better" measure should be removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I put the undue tag there last month Direktor, Nuujiin just restored it when you removed it. I understand WP:OVERTAGGING is not WP policy, but nevertheless I didn't feel that it was POV tagging. I believed, and still believe (although there had been improvements), that there is significant undue weight given to certain matters in the article. Excuse my lack of knowledge/experience as regard tagging, but when I get a minute, I will list them. As far as the Turkish translation bit in the lede is concerned, both FkpCascais and I consider it does not meet the 'importance' test to remain in the lede (although Fkp may have a slightly different view as to why it shouldn't be there). I am interested in other editors views, particularly as it is covered in sufficient detail in the Etymology section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujiin. I'm not sure what you were doing with the Formation and Ideology section. I support Direktor's reverts, as you appear to have blanked that section and replaced it with info unrelated to WW2 which is covered sufficiently in earlier sections. As far as the translation regarding 'Fatherland' and 'Homeland' is concerned, whilst it may not be important enough to be in the lede, FkpCascais, Direktor and I have discussed this at some length above, and it is probably worth clarifying that there are two possible translations (which is reflected in the sources). Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, I do not have a different view, but exactly the same as you and I explained myself, just that I complained about Direktor doing this for simple provocative purposes, as he is very well aware that Chetniks fought Turks in their first stages of existance... FkpCascais (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, here's the diff. I did add some material in the wrong section, and I thank DIREKTOR for moving that, but mainly what I did was expand a bit on the formation of the Chetniks in WWII with references to distinguish the Pecanac's and Mihailovice's groups, and marked statements that need references, with some prose cleanup and some minor deletions. I don't think my edits constituted section blanking, but I'm willing to talk about it. Also, if anyone has Tomasevich p.123 at hand, could you post the quote regarding the naming of the movement.

FWIW, I agree with you and FKP regarding the translation issue being in the lede.

In regard to Homeland versus Fatherland, I think that if the best sources we have use "homeland" that's what we should use, since we cannot rely on our expertise, as wanting or vast as it may be. I do have experience as a translator, so I could make a reasonable argument in this regard, but it wouldn't count for anything since we are supposed to rely on what reliable sources say. If the issue were important enough for us to get into it, there'd be a source discussing it, but so far I'm not found one. The raw number of ghits on the terms is really irrelevant, as the quality of sources is the key question. I think Roberts, Tomasevich, and Pavlowitch are the three best we have, and they use homeland. What's the best source that uses Fatherland?

Also, DIREKTOR, WP:TAGGING is neither a policy nor a guideline, but rather an essay, and thus it represents the opinions of some editors--we are not bound to it, but removal of tags in the midst of a dispute is considered rather bad form--the article as it stand omits a good deal of information and thus gives undue weight to a number of key issues (such as basically omitting that while some Germans in the early part of the war did try to reach agreements with the Chetniks, many were doing their best to wipe them out). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Either discuss the supposed WP:UNDUE violation or stop reverting the removal of Peacemaker's tag which was added for a specific reason which no longer applies. What you are doing is classic WP:OVERTAGGING, which is not actionable as you point out, but edit-warring to do so is. There is no WP:UNDUE discussion on this talkpage, and you will be called upon to justify your latest edit war on ANI. The purpose of the tags is to help solve the issues, not to keep them in for "psychological effect".

• "fatherland" = "otadžbina" (derived from "otac" meaning "father"); "homeland" = "domovina" (derived from "dom" meaning "home"). As far as translation is concerned, there is no room for debate whatsoever. The terms correspond entirely in the two languages, and are only as interchangeable in English as "homeland" and "fatherland" are interchangeable. In short, to translate "fatherland" into "homeland" is an error without question, but the two terms are virtual synonyms (in both languages).
• "otadžbina" (fatherland) is the traditional Serbian way of referring to their country in romantic terms, "domovina" (homeland) is traditionally Croatian (much as "motherland" is Russian, etc.). The motto of the (Serb-dominated) Kingdom of Yugoslavia was "For King and Fatherland!" (Za Kralja i Otadžbinu!), as was the case with the Kingdom of Serbia before it. The motto of the Chetniks themselves was "For King and Fatherland!" (Za Kralja i Otadžbinu!).
• Nuujinn, you can keep knocking down these straw men of yours all week if you like. I would never suggest we use a term, correctly translated or no, that was significantly out of usage in English-language sources. Unlike you, who simply defines your position as an opposition to my own and continuously seeks to undermine whatever I may propose, I researched the matter before forming an opinion. The sources are divided equally on the usage of the of the term, and very high quality sources can be found using either [7]. In addition to all of the above, you will find all over enWikipedia, "Fatherland" is currently being used.

"Homeland" is used and deserves mention in the WWII section as an alternative translation, but its plain inaccurate and should not supersede a term that equally well sourced - but perfectly correct. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is equally well sourced, as the better sources we have such as Roberts and Tomasevich tend to use Homeland instead of Fatherland, and in looking over the sources (for the third time) that use Fatherland, I see mostly sources that we would regard as marginal--numbers do not matter so much as quality. And I simply don't care what your position is in regard to the accuracy of the translations, as I believe that falls in the realm of OR. I don't care what we have on WP, since we are not a reliable source. In regard to the undue tag, I have mentioned my major concern regarding undue weight, and until that is resolved, I will maintain the tag. (As an aside, in US English, Fatherland is not at all the same and Homeland.) --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So, supposing (just for a moment) we were all to accept your personal standards with regard to what constitutes a "better source", are you seriously telling people you reviewed the quality of well over 3,000 sources to produce some sort of real basis for such statements? I mean, I know you don't "agree" with me, that's a given in any situation, but at least you could put together a coherent, believable argument.

As for your "rejection" of what constitutes an accurate translation, that does little more than affirm your position as being the opposite of mine rather at all costs. Anyone who speaks the language (FkpCascais included, see above) can tell you the above disclosure is correct. For the record Nuujinn, I am entirely bilingual and speak English and Serbo-Croatian indifferently and with a flawless accent. I thank you, therefore, but I do not need you to instruct me in the English language, particularly since it appears you may need some help there yourself: the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (of US English) explicitly disagrees with you: "fatherland" is not only listed as one of the synonyms of "homeland" (and vice versa), its listed first as the closest equivalent. You know, it strikes me that if you keep "opposing" just about everything I say, you're bound to oppose me on something rather obvious such as this, and then you won't look all that good.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So now direktor, you don´t know anymore what is a "better source"? How is that you claimed this troughout discussions regarding Tomasevic, but now suddenly you don´t know about "better sources"?

Anyway, what is your problem with Homeland? We all agreed to use it except you, who is making a drama out of nowhere. Tomasevic and Roberts (the heaviest weights of sources we have been using) both use it. And regarding the translation, we already spoke about it, literal translation doesn´t allways necessaily have to be the best, as in this case Homeland is equally used and quite suitable for the context. Anyway, we all agreed, we could be moving on, but you do your usual stuff. FkpCascais (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fkp you know its the wrong translation, the Chetnik motto is "Za Kralja i Otadzbinu!", a ne "Za Tudjmana i Domovinu!" :). It just hurts my eyes. Believe it or not I actually don't have it in for the Chetniks, I respect their tradition and would like to see it accurately depicted. But you're right on some level, if you don't care about it, I suppose I shouldn't make a fuss over it.

As for "better source", read my post(s) more carefully. I was only quoting Tomasevich's peer reviews - I was not trying to impose my own personal definition of a "better source". Some sources are certainly "better" than others, its simply that we are not the ones to make such judgments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I thin Fkp makes a good point--if you regard the terms as synonyms, why do you care enough to disagree with Tomasevich (who you have consistently lauded) and the other mainline sources such as Roberts and Pavlowitch? Good translations are generally not word for word, and dictionaries deal with definitions. Translations rely on both definitions and connotations. But if you want to pursue, I would suggest that you rustle up the three best sources that use Fatherland and we'll compare them. I looked through a dozen pages of the google searches last night, and I did not see anything that matched the quality of those three. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Homeland" is an acceptable translation (because its a synonym), but its not the best translation. "Fatherland" is the best translation of "otadzbina" because "otadzbina" is derived from the word "father" ("otac"). To put it more simply, "fatherland" and "otadzbina" are the exact same word in their respective languages. "Homeland" and "otadzbina" are not.

I do not "regard" them as synonyms, they are synonyms. That said, "fatherland" and "homeland" have a very similar meaning, but they are obviously not 100% completely identical (and therefore one is more accurate than the other). And I believe I've said several times I'm dropping the issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominally&de facto

I see that a group of editors massively uses this description in the infobox using:

Kingdom of Yugoslavia (nominally), Axis powers (de facto)

I find this simplification tendentious. I made an edit on Pavle Đurišić in order to replace this simplification with a more precise and correct info. I am not saying that my edit ahould be definitive, but we do need to discuss this issue and acknolledge that the version nominally/de facto can/should be improved. FkpCascais (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting his allegiance was and when? and what are your sources? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there is no allegiance in the info box for this article, take the discussion over to the Djurisic article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanked sections & deleted sources

Blanked text

- Ethnic cleansing -

See also: Ethnic cleansing

As part of his policies regarding the restoration of the monarchy and the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia and within, a Greater Serbia, and also as retaliation for the massacres suffered by Serbs at the hands of the Ustaše and the Balli Kombëtar, the Chetnik supreme commander Draža Mihailović issued the following "Instructions" to his commanders on 20 December 1941:

“ The mission of our units is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the King Peter II;
2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Bačka;
3. The struggle for the incorporation into our social structure of those non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, and Carinthia), as well as Bulgaria and northern Albania with Shkodra;
4. The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;
5. The creation of direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Bosniak population from Sandžak, and the Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6. The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;
7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

There may be no collaboration with the communists [Partisans], as they are fighting against the Dynasty and in favor of socialist revolution. Balli Kombëtar [Albanians], SS Handschar [Bosniaks], and Ustaše [Croats] are to be treated in accordance with their merit for the horrendous crimes against our population, i.e. they are to be turned over to the People's Court. The Croats living on the territory under Italian occupation [Dalmatians] are to be treated based on their disposition at the given moment.

”

The exact number of Bosniak, Croat and other civilians murdered under the direct command of Mihailović's Chetniks has never been established. In his book Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941-1945, historian Šemso Tucaković estimated that out of 150,000 Bosniaks who lost their lives in World War II, some 100,000 were murdered by Chetniks. He also listed at least 50,000 Bosnian Muslim names directly known to have been killed by Chetniks. According to World War II historian Vladimir Žerjavić, approximately 29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats were killed by Chetniks during World War II. Žerjavić's figures have also been cited as too conservative and figures of up to 300,000 non-Serbs have been suggested.

Some of the major World War II Chetnik massacres against ethnic Croats and Bosniaks include:

• April 15, 1941, Knin, Grahovo, Sinj - 100 civilians killed in horrible manner, victims were cut off their ears, hands, and eyes before being killed;
• July 1941, Herzegovina (Bileća, Stolac) - approximately 1,150 civilians killed;
• August 1941, Pogrom in Krnjeuša
• December 1941/January 1942, eastern Bosnia (Foča, Goražde) - approximately 2,050 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Bukovica) - approximately 1,000 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia (Ustikolina, Jahorina) - approximately 2,500 civilians killed;
• September 1942, southern Dalmatia (Makarska) - approximately 900 civilians killed;
• October 1942, Herzegovina (Prozor) - approximately 2,500 civilians killed;
• January 1943, Sandžak (Bijelo Polje) - approximately 1,500 civilians killed;
• February 1943, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Čajniče, Pljevlja) - 9,200-20,000 civilians killed. While Chetniks themselves admitted killed over 9,000 people, other estimates put the number in 20,000 people killed. It was the largest single Chetnik massacre of World War II.

Draža Mihailović's Chetniks committed numerous crimes against the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak. For example, in his briefing to the Serb General Draža Mihailović, the Chetnik Commander Pavle Đurišić reported on January 10, "thirty-three Muslim villages had been burned down, and 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians) and about 1,000 women and children had been killed, as against 14 Chetnik dead and 26 wounded". According to another report by Đurišić dated February 13, "Chetniks killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children; Chetnik losses in the action were 22 killed and 32 wounded".

According to the verdict of Mihailović's trial Serbian Chetniks attacked Serbian Partisan villages and systematically murdered villagers. For example, on the night between 20 and 21 December 1943, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Miodrag Palošević and Major Sveta Trifković, the Chetniks attacked a Serbian village of Vranić, south-west of Belgrade, and slaughtered 72 civilians, among whom were two small children.

- Massacres -

The Chetniks directed mass terror towards primarily three groups: the Muslims, the Croats, and the Partisans. Between October 1942 and February 1943 the Chetniks perpetrated some of the most extreme terror and practiced it on the largest scale in areas under Italian control and security. In Yugoslavia and in all the Balkan countries there was an inclination to use terror as a political tool. The South Slavs were under foreign rule for centuries, frustrated with their failed attempts of freedom and increased oppression, they grew familiar with the use of terror as a way of dealing with enemies. By 1941, there were additional grievances which added to the long antagonism between the Christians (especially Orthodox) and the Muslims. Centuries-old religious and political antagonism between Christians and Muslims was agitated when the First World War broke out and many Bosnian Muslims joined the Austro-Hungarian Schutzkorps, which took part in anti-Serb activities, and again after April 1941 when many Muslims joined the Ustašas and were participants in atrocities against Serbs. The Chetniks thus viewed the Muslims as a traditional enemy, and only after mid-1943, when the potential political value of the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak was viewed as important to the Chetniks, did they stop carrying out acts of terror against the Muslims. Mutual grievances existed between the Croats and the Serbs especially. The Serbs, after the invasion, had increased grievances from the treasonable activities of some Croats and from the persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. Both the Chetniks and Ustaše drew on religious and national differences and had their ideology fixated on the thousand-year-old antagonism that existed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Chetniks used mass terror against the Partisans, their principal enemy, regardless of nationality or religion at every opportunity beginning in late fall of 1941.

The exact number of Muslim, Croat and other civilians murdered under the direct command of Mihailović's Chetniks has never been established. In his book Crimes Against Bosnian Muslims 1941-1945, historian Šemso Tucaković estimated that out of 150,000 Muslims who lost their lives in World War II, some 100,000 were murdered by Chetniks. He also listed at least 50,000 Bosnian Muslim names directly known to have been killed by Chetniks. According to World War II historian Vladimir Žerjavić, approximately 29,000 Muslims and 18,000 Croats were killed by Chetniks during World War II. Žerjavić's figures have also been cited as too conservative and figures of up to 300,000 non-Serbs have been suggested.

Mihailović was captured on 13 March 1946 by agents of the Yugoslav security agency (OZNA) and charged on 47 counts. The trial lasted from 10 June to 15 July. The court found him guilty on 8 counts, including crimes against humanity and high treason and sentenced to death by firing squad on 15 July. The Presidium of the National Assembly rejected the clemency appeal on 16 July. He was executed together with nine other officers in the early hours of 18 July 1946, in Lisičiji Potok, about 200 meters from the former Royal Palace, and buried in an unmarked grave on the same spot. His main prosecutor was Miloš Minić, later Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Yugoslav Government.

- Against Muslims -

Đurišić's report of 13 February 1943 reporting the massacres of Muslims in the counties of Čajniče and Foča in southeastern Bosnia and in the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak.

The Chetniks systemically massacred Muslims in villages that they captured. These actions were portrayed by the Chetniks as countermeasures against Muslim aggressive activities; however, all circumstances show that these massacres were committed in accordance with implementing Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 that ordered Chetnik commanders to ethnically cleanse Muslims (among others). The massacres were carried out in areas relatively untouched by the Ustaša genocide until spring of 1942 and were an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology behind the Chetnik movement.

These massacres reached their culmination in a genocidal campaign carried out in late autumn of 1941 in which the Italians handed over the towns of south-east Bosnia to the Chetniks to run as a puppet administration. The Chetniks, after their break with the Partisans, began their goal of creating a civilian and military government - the 'Provisional Administration for East Bosnia'. This goal was reached through talks held in November with the Italians which resulted in the Chetniks receiving the towns of Visegrád, Goražde, Foča and surrounding areas, from which NDH forces were compelled by the Italians to withdraw from. After the Chetniks gained control of Goražde on 29 November 1941, they began a massacre of Home Guard prisoners and NDH officials that became a systematic massacre of the local Muslim civilian population. Several hundred Muslims were murdered and their bodies were left hanging in the town or thrown into the Drina river. On 5 December 1941, the Chetniks received the town of Foča from the Italians and proceeded to massacre around five hundred Muslims. Additional massacres against the Muslims in the area of Foča took place in August 1942. In total, over two thousand people were killed in Foča. In early January, the Chetniks entered Srebrenica and killed around a thousand Muslim civilians in the town and in nearby villages. Around the same time the Chetniks made their way to Visegrád where deaths were reportedly in the thousands. Massacres continued in the following months in the region. In the village of Žepa alone about three hundred were killed in late 1941. In early January, Chetniks massacred fifty-four Muslims in Čelebić and burned down the village. On 3 March, the Chetniks burned forty-two Muslim villagers to death in Drakan.

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

- Against Croats -

The Chetniks used mass terror against the Croats. This included Serb-Croat mixed areas where the Ustaša carried out mass terror against the Serbs and the Chetniks against the Croats. One of the worst Chetnik outbursts against the Croat population of Dalmatia took place in early October 1942 in the village of Gata near Split, in which an estimated one hundred people were killed and many homes were burnt in a reprisal taken against the people of Gata and nearby villages for the destruction of some roads in the area and carried out on the Italians account.

- Against Partisans -

In Serbia, aside from a few terrorist acts carried out against the men of Nedić and Ljotić and Montenegrin separatists, terror was directed solely against the Partisans and their families and sympathizers, and was based only on ideological grounds. The goal, as repeatedly proven by Chetnik documents in general and specific orders, was for the complete destruction of the Partisans. The total number of Partisan victims will never be known. As indiscriminate terror against the Partisans was impossible since the Partisans and their sympathizers were living among other Serbs and Montenegrins. The Chetniks instead created lists of individuals that were to be liquidated. Special units known as "black trojkas" were trained and carried out these acts of terror. The standard method that was used in these liquidations, especially in rural areas, was through the use of a knife.

- References -

Discussion

The above is the mass of sourced text removed without talkpage consensus, along with its accompanying sources, by User:Nuujinn on 18 August 2011 [8]. It was replaced by Nuujinn's own (much briefer) draft Ethnic conflict and terror tactics which

• 1. deletes any mention of ethnic cleansing (a term very frequently used in sources), replacing it with the user's own term - "ethnic conflict"
• 2. deletes all reference to the controversial Instrukcije document, along with the accompanying images
• 3. generally deletes large amounts of data pertaining to Chetnik massacres and terror tactics against civilian populations as described in sources, replacing it with a select few (supposedly those the user found in the sources he preferred)

The sources and the text they support was removed by User:Nuujinn [9], when opposed the removal was pushed through by WP:EDIT-WARRING through the combined efforts of User:Nuujinn [10] and User:FkpCascais [11] [12] [13]. That the unilateral, opposed, and repeated removal of this much sourced, accurate text from a Wikipedia article has not been sanctioned in some way is a strange phenomenon indeed.

It is blatantly obvious, perhaps without even reading the deleted text, that truly massive amounts of well-sourced data, images, and references were blanked from this article. And this being exclusively information pertaining to war crimes perpetrated by units of the Chetnik movement against civilian populations. All without a viable explanation, or I should say, a viable excuse, that might justify the removal of information and disregarding of sources. This is contrary to numerous Wikipedia policies, as is explained in WP:NOBLANKING. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you know that this was done as part of the mediation process after long discussions, and I'm very sorry that you feel it is necessary to turn this into a personal matter. That's all I'll say about this in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Nuujinn. The mediation did not bring forth any such decision. Nor could it have, given the massive content blanking that would entail. The supposed "consensus" (essentially only among one side of this debate) only seems to have pertained to the Draza Mihailovic article. And indeed, while it may be conceivably explainable why all mention of ethnic cleansing was stricken from the text of that article, here it constitutes appalling WP:NPOV violations - as the term is not only present in virtually all modern publications (written after it was instituted), but "cleansing actions" (akcije ciscenja) was the term actually used bu the Chetniks themselves. It is nothing short of horrifying to see that Greater-Serbianism, the single primary objective of the Chetniks virtually synonymous with them, has been almost completely de-emphasized, that the Instrukcije have been stricken from all mention, and that numerous massacres, previously included in the text, have been censored from it. With the sources in mind, I must tell you this is not an acceptable situation, Nuujinn.

In short, it is necessary to restore the removed sourced information, which was stricken from the article. I do not propose your draft be altered, merely expanded with the above information in accordance with the supporting sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the mediation was not only about DM article, but all related, and the long discussions that took place there are not going to be repeated in every single article. With regard of the issues you (direktor) mention here, the proper mention (with all its controverses) of the Instrukcije is OK in my view, but your horrific section of how Chetniks were the most terrible butchers was probably the worste and most POV text ever seen on wikipedia... honestly. FkpCascais (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, did you checked your sources? You are using Ivo Omrčanin, a former NDH official (!!!). He blames Jews for the slaughter of Serbs and talks about it publically in the 1990s!!! Then you use bs:Enver Redžić (translation), an active Partisan who already in 1941 has started receving major communist condecorations (quite neutral ah?). Then we have hr:Zdravko Dizdar, a Croatian historian who wrote about "the labour movement somewhere in Croatia 1929-1941" and then within Tito Yugoslavia writes about "Chetnik crimes 1941-1945"... (he is still very active writing about Serbian crimes)... Ana Došen, another Croatian author... Oh, and Noel Malcolm as the cherry on the cake. Very neutral... Good job direk... Perhaps we should use a bit of Vojislav Šešelj to balance things... FkpCascais (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

..or you could balance it out, with some of your own research? :) Yes some of the sources are not acceptable, that's a fact, and you know I don't support the use of locally-published dribble, but most of the text there is sourced quite well, and some of the badly sourced text is unchallengable general knowledge.

As I said above, the well sourced information has to be restored. The Instrukcije need to be elaborated upon, and a their citation restored. The images, and the text they illustrate, need to be placed back in the article, etc. etc. The "Massacres" section is not "my section", I'm telling you again I did not write a single word of the above text. And, in spite of your colorful language, it does not depict the Chetniks as anything other than what they were, as it is very well sourced in its entirety - right down to the primary evidence listed in the publication. If you wish to challenge the inclusion of any of those massacres, you are, as always, free to provide sources which deny they occurred. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The article which is in place right now is sourced and edited in a quite balanced way. Your text (yes, yours because most of this was introduced by you as I already presented a diff) is not NPOV, uses unacceptable sources, deals about an issue already expanded on another section (created at mediation, you disagree with parts, so do I, so patience my friend, that is what mediation is about), resumingly, the text you propose is very very far from being remotely encyclopedic... PS: When Nuujinn initially agreed with some of your edits he was your favourite, as it is easily seen in discussions from that period, but now, after the mediation, when things are more clear you make many accusations towards him. You can´t act towards editors by simplifiying your relation to "agree, or disagree" with you. Apologies Nuujinn for mentioning you here, but this should stay in record as well. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway direktor, you just admited in your last post that the text you want to insert in the article has serios problems with sources. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind being mentioned, and I'm willing to answer to statements I have made. I do not disagree with all of the edits DIREKTOR has made--indeed, in putting together the initial draft for the Milhailovic article, I relied heavily on both his and JJG's versions. But this article appears to me to be terribly slanted against the Chetniks, and we need to adopt a nuanced approach. The situation was complicated, as the Chetniks engaged in both collaboration and resistance, and the extent and ratio of both of these activities varied with time. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You, Nuujinn, made a huge effort to bring balance to this article using the most reliable sources. It is all but fair to see you being treated in a hard way by other users personally involved in the subject. Even if I disagree with your draft here and there, It is evident an honest neutral approach from you, and I will allways try to help you as it is an encyclopedic and "workable" version. Direktor´s version just has too many issues to be worked out and unfortunatelly, by the tone as it is edited, becomes provocative and asks for nationalistic response, something I will gladly like to see avoided in these articles, as after all this is an encyclopedia, not a nationalists battleground. Despite all our divergences in the past, I must thank you for not giving up after all you have been dealing with here. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes whatever.. enough with the personal opinions please. The deleted content, the images and that text which is backed with reliable sources, has to be restored into the article (alongside the information entered by Nuujinn of course). Sourced information can only be countered with other sources, not with lots and lost of talk. I've started this thread to see whether there are some counter-sources that justified the deletion of the reliably sourced text from above. And if there are none, to discuss how best to integrate the two bodies of text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliably sourced text? You think by repeating yourself you´ll convince someone that a text partially written by war criminals and other involved authors is going to pass? Seems you don´t listen to what is being told... FkpCascais (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not dream of stealing your method of argument, Fkp. If you would direct your gaze to the "- References -" subsection above, I'm sure you'll notice quite a lot of "non-war-criminal" authors. Also, by following the links next to them, you may discover that the vast majority of the text is, in fact, sourced by the latter. It does not really matter how much though: if there were a single solitary well-sourced sentence above (instead of several paragraphs), its deletion would have to be undone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You just recognised (again) that your text has issues to be solved. A polemical disputed text with serios issues cannot simply go, certainly not if we already have a mediated section dealing about that precise issue. FkpCascais (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucky I started this thread then, isn't it? We can remove anything sourced with local publications, and keep the well sourced content (for the third time: its not "my text"). Wouldn't it have been terribly convenient for you to just discard all this unpleasant negative information on the Chetniks, eh? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that some of the sources used in the above are in my view utterly unacceptable in this discussion. In some cases, it would be like asking Tito to give his opnion on Mihailovic or vice versa. Can we stick to our reliable and quality sources on this? There is no doubt massacres occurred, and we have good sources for that. I am not keen to see Partisan/Yugoslav post-war Communist sources or Chetnik expatriate sources included here, as they can hardly be considered unbiased or objective. Can we agree to use just the quality sources we have used for major parts of the rest of this article? Ramet, Roberts, Tomasevich and Milazzo (in no particular order), plus any others we can agree on? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The question of sources is always tricky with contentious subjects. See this list for some sources we're used in the discussions about this and the the Mihailović article. Ramet and Hoare are good examples of reliable sources that must be used with care, due to their strong points of view. Tomasevich has been criticized by some editors has having a bias, as has Karchmar and I think also Milazzo, but my impression is that they are good main line sources. I don't recall anyone having any problems with Roberts. Our policy on reliable sources does not exclude sources based on bias, since bias is to be expected, but we do require that sources be balanced. That being said, I agree with your assessment in general about use of sources, and would add that we prefer high quality sources in English, although quality sources in other languages are acceptable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll say again, I DO NOT support using locally published (ex-Yugoslavia) sources at all. I.e. my position is even more rigorous than that of Fkp. Believe me, nobody knows how biased local sources are better than the locals. (Ex-)Yugoslav historiography, virtually for the entire past century, alternates between nationalist and communist propaganda. Its nauseating, I never read it. You can just imagine what rubbish the schools peddle. In Serbia, the Chetniks didn't collaborate except for the Pecanac Chetniks (hence Fkp's initial views on the subject), whereas in Croatia historians are inventing whole fake Croatian countries and diminishing the crimes of the Ustase ("60,000 victims" and so on). The one thing both sides agree on is that the communists were evil incarnate.. the communists however had their field day all the way until 1990, then we have the Bosniaks, etc. etc. And people wonder why Balkans Wiki is such a mess... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been absent for a few months, but have been reading up a bit and hopefully I'm up to date on the situation. I note that Nuujinn's version has excluded the entirety of text attributed to Hoare. Is this the type of "care" that we are expected to use?

I went ahead and revised the above text. I removed local authors, properly referenced the text, and added a few sentences of new text. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a POV mess, since it doesn't place any of these events in context by generally ignoring massacres committed by others against the Serbs. Atrocities during this period, indeed, during the entirety of the 20th century and before were commonplace and extensive, and we do our readers an injustice if we do not place such events in context. I have long proposed a separate article on ethnic cleansing/massacres in the balkans, since I believe that is the only way to present such events properly. Also, we have established that some reliable sources consider the instructions from Mihailovic a forgery. These issues were discussed at length during the mediation, and I'm sorry that you and DIREKTOR declined to participate or agreed with the results, but trying to force this back into the article in this manner is not an appropriate course of action. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why nobody is suggesting we remove your text which provides the context. We will simply restore the text that elaborates more on the Chetniks, who are after all - the subject of this article. However, context notwithstanding, the sources are clear that the massacres and "cleansing campaigns" were, in large part, a reflection of policy based on pre-war Greater Serbian ideology. Note: the massacres were by and large not committed against the (armed) Croat populations, though there was that too, but against the virtually defenseless Muslims - who committed no atrocities against Serbs.

It will be good if in future you ceased calling upon the mediation, which brought forth no "results" and solved no issues. Your purpose seems to be to deliberately create a false impression to the contrary, i.e. you are eager to create the impression it is somehow "against policy" to undo your removal of massive amounts of data in favour of text you wrote yourself alone. Next you will be telling us your section is alone immutable on this entire project :).

Furthermore, even if there was some "result" you could point to (and there is none), there is no policy or obligation that forces anyone to follow any decisions of an RfM. This has been pointed out to you before.

Nuujinn, you seem to view the Wikipedia mediation process as a tool to facilitate optimal article expansion, or a mechanism that enforces the preservation of your text against opposition. A mediation cannot help you there, quite the contrary: the sole purpose of an RfM is to help achieve user agreement. That has not been achieved, and the dispute continues. The mediation, as defined by Wikipedia policy, became quite useless the second it became unable to facilitate an agreement between the disputing parties. I told you well before it was closed in failure, that the mediation has become an utterly pointless affair, and that (perhaps thanks to Sunray's management) you fundamentally misunderstand what it actually is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, was my impression that you complained about OR? Check out your first paragraph... more OR than that is impossible. FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a challenge? Perhaps you'd care to give me a run for my money then? :)

If you look closely you'll note that I am referring to the position of the sources, not myself. I am always prepared to back any challenged point. That was just a side-note to my post, though if I must transcribe the sources here I shall enter them into the article as well. I am speaking from memory though, I admit, as I recall Tomasevich devotes entire sections to Greater-Serbianism and the Chetnik philosophy of an ethnically pure Super Serbia.

But I believe we were discussing restoring the deleted information (as refined by PRODUCER) and merging with your text. Do you have any other objections? You do not seem to be responding to posts in their entirety. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to list all of the massacres that the chetniks engaged in, we'll pretty much need to list all of the massacres that occurred just prior to and just after WWII in the entire region to avoid undue weight and present the events in context. We do not need a comprehensive list that is exclusively Chetnik crimes, at least not here, and for that reason I object to inclusion of the material as it is presented in PRODUCER's version. My suggestion is that we start an article, say "Ethnic Conflicts in the Balkans" and make a comprehensive list there, in chronological order, of all acts by all parties. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujiin. I disagree with your proposed course of action. This article is about the Chetniks, and massacres committed by them in WW2 are an important part of the full story. The NDH article is where the massacres committed by them should be dealt with etc etc. I understand that you want the issue of Chetnik 'terror' dealt with in context of all of the 'terror' that occurred in Yugoslavia during the war and historically, and that is what I consider we should do, here in the Chetnik article. I don't think that we need a comprehensive list of every act of 'terror' committed by the Chetniks, but an overview in the context of the various factors that underpinned the violence. I believe that it can be done, using quality sources and with NPOV. Tomasevich Vol 1. has a section on 'Chetnik terror' starting on p256. He states that terror was practised by all parties engaged in the war and that it was ubiquitous throughout the country. He talks about a 'traditional inclination' towards the use of terror as a political tool in Yugoslavia, talks about the various grievances, and then splits the 'Chetnik terror' up into three sections, counterterror against Croats, terror against Muslims in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Sandjak, and then against the Partisans and their supporters. Why don't we use this summary as a basis for the discussion and bring in information from other quality sources to strengthen it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the massacres are important, but with respect, one of the problems with the articles in the Balkan space in general is exactly the approach you're advocating--in this article we have only atrocities committed by Chetniks, in the NDH article only atrocities committed by them, and thus each article presents the acts in isolation, and thus we do not get a view of the overall situation in the region. Also, I do not think we really do not need an exhaustive list of all of the atrocities committed, since we're providing an encyclopaedic view. But we may be getting too caught up in questions of approach. IF we can present the massacres and other atrocities in a balanced and nuanced manner, I'm on board with that. But a simple list of "here's the bad things they did" isn't really appropriate, as I think you would agree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, your logic is very flawed. According to you, NPOV means when writing an article about a war faction, and describing atrocities committed by that faction, we would be required to list equal amounts(!) of atrocities committed by various opposing factions. That's just plain ole nonsense, very indicative of pro-Chetnik bias, and is seen absolutely nowhere on Wikipedia. This article is about the Chetniks, and as far the ethnic cleansing is concerned (and we shall call it ethnic cleansing since the sources do), we shall provide a fair amount of context in the form 1) Chetnik Greater-Serbian ideology and 2) the general brutality of the war in Yugoslavia, and then we shall proceed to write a list entitled "Here's the Bad Things They Did".

Incidentally, if Chetnik atrocities were of a retaliatory nature to such a degree that equal amounts of the supposed "incitement" are necessary, I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business). It was the wrong nation, in the wrong place. You see what I am saying? We would have your "full list" listing various Croatian Ustase crimes, above an account of what are primarily Chetnik atrocities against Muslims.

If the Ustase activities were the cause, then perhaps you think the Chetniks were just "striking out in anger" against the first non-Serbs they can get their hands on? Rather like a husband, who got fired at work, coming home and beating his wife? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I really wish that you would stop trying to dictate what we will and will not do, and stop accusing me of pro-chetnik bias. Just stop it.

According to you, NPOV means when writing an article about a war faction, and describing atrocities committed by that faction, we would be required to list equal amounts(!) of atrocities committed by various opposing factions. No, that's not accurate. What I'm saying is that the structure of breaking out a list of atrocities in isolation is not NPOV. Neither is to treat collaboration as it is treated now, where we list the groups with whom collaboration occurred and within each section list just acts of collaboration. That produces a tally sheet, not an encyclopaedic article. And my position as to why massacres took place is irrelevant, as is yours. Our job is to correctly represent all of the reliable sources to produce a balanced article, not to paint the Chetniks any particular color.

But in regard to Incidentally, if Chetnik atrocities were of a retaliatory nature to such a degree that equal amounts of the supposed "incitement" are necessary, I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business), that's a complete straw man, as I said nothing of the sort. These events took place in an historical context, and we need to reflect that. I will point you to Tomosevich, page 256-257:

• 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 Sandžak 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. Against them, whatever their nationality or religion, from the late fall of 1941 the Chetniks used terrorist methods at every opportunity.

I believe this is somewhere close to page 259, but I'm not exactly sure since you provided the quotes and didn't break them down page by page:

• In terms of the number of victims and the cruelty of dispatching them, the Croatian Ustashas were, of course, far more guilty of crimes against humanity than were the Chetniks, though the Chetnik massacres of Moslem people in Sandjak and southeastern Bosnia were in essence of the same kind. It should also be pointed out that the Ustasha atrocities were undertaken first, and that at least to some extent the Chetnik terrorist activities against the Croatian and Moslem populations were in the nature of a reaction.

So we see, as Peacemaker67 has suggested below, that the atrocities perpetrated against Muslim and Croats were to an extent made as acts of retaliation, justified or no, and we need to present the actions of the Chetniks in that context. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New arbitrary section

I would like to suggest a form similar to this for the first para of this section-

Mass terror in many forms was practised by all parties engaged in the war in Yugoslavia, and occurred throughout the country from April 1941 until the end of the war. Long-standing differences and traditional enmities between the Serb, Croats and Muslim populations were soon exacerbated by the initiation of mass terror by the Ustasha regime against Serbs living within the NDH. Large numbers of Muslims joined the Ustashas and also participated in atrocities against the Serb population (Tomasevich, Vol 1. pp.256-257).

I consider it would then be appropriate to start talking about the argument that some of the Chetnik atrocities were at least in part and in some areas a response to the Ustasha terror (something Tomasevich accepts), and then deal with the evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia, along with the questions about the validity of the Mihailovic/Djurisic instructions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of breaking out another section, but I think we're literally on the same page at the moment. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your "pretend discussions", Nuujinn. I don't know whether you're doing this deliberately to annoy me, whether you just don't read other people's posts to the end, or if you're just discussing with your perception of myself rather than in accordance with what I am actually saying. I am NOT suggesting we describe Chetnik atrocities in isolation, I made that clear several times, on the contrary - its you who are suggesting what is obvious over-emphasis on the crimes of other factions.

"..we'll pretty much need to list all of the massacres that occurred just prior to and just after WWII in the entire region to avoid undue weight and present the events in context."
[though I have to say I have no idea what massacres "just prior to WWII" you are referring to.. :)]

Peacemaker's above quote is an excellent example of the sort of context I do whole-heartily support, perhaps even too brief(!), but not entered without Greater-Serbianism (the Chetniks' primary objective according to Tomasevich) elaborated-upon as well and perhaps with a larger emphasis. The sources can provide us with guidance with regard to which motive to emphasize more. There is no question that industrial-scale mass murder of Serbs executed by the Ustase dwarfs any other atrocities - but they are not the subject of this article.

As I said above, you do not read my posts. I have no idea what straw men you are referring to, since I never stated you said anything. I merely pointed out that the massacres were for the most part perpetrated against Muslims, rather than the Croats, and that this would render a text that over-emphasizes Croatian Ustase crimes as the prime motivation an entirely silly composition. What I am saying is that atrocities against Muslims (which are in the majority), contrary to what you say above, could not possibly have been perpetrated as any sort of "retaliation", and no source could conceivably claim that - since the Muslims did not commit any atrocities against Serbs (or almost anyone for that matter). It seems you're finding the various ethnic groups of the Balkans confusing? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I've read every word that you've written here, generally more than once. Thankfully, I can read very quickly. Let's break it down a bit:

• What I am saying is that atrocities against Muslims (which are in the majority), contrary to what you say above. Where did I make any statement about which kind of atrocity was in the majority? That's exactly the kind of tallying I'm opposed to.
• The straw man is pretty clear I'm still waiting for your position as to why the massacres took place primarily against the Muslims, and that mostly in Serbia rather than in Bosnia (where the Ustase were conducting their business). You're talking past me, against a statement I did not make, and I don't care against which group the majority of massacres took place, as I'm trying to focus on that the sources say about the Chetniks.
• the Muslims did not commit any atrocities against Serbs (or almost anyone for that matter). Not true, according to Tomosevich, I quote again: 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.
• atrocities against Muslims ... could not possibly have been perpetrated as any sort of "retaliation", and no source could conceivably claim that Tomosevich does claim exactly that they were to an extent: It should also be pointed out that the Ustasha atrocities were undertaken first, and that at least to some extent the Chetnik terrorist activities against the Croatian and Moslem populations were in the nature of a reaction.

These are quotes that you provided.

Now, if you're sick and tired of how I pretend to discuss things, you can either try to change the nature of our interaction, leave off discussion with me, seek guidance of how to deal with me, report me to another noticeboard or follow some other actions suggested by our guidelines and policies concerning dispute resolution. Take your pick. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• "(which are a majority)" is in brackets, Nuujinn. Read the text without them, and then read you statement above ("the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims and Croats were to an extent made as acts of retaliation").
• The straw man is only in your mind. I am not quoting you in any way, nor am I suggesting you made any claim or statement whatsoever. I'm asking you to elaborate your position as to why the massacres took place against the Muslims, with regard to your insistence on over-emphasizing retaliation as a motive.
• Yes, some Muslims joined the Ustase, but the Ustase were an ultranationalist Croatian movement. It seems quite the stretch that Ustase crimes were so blamed on the Muslims of all people, that their civilians bore the brunt of Chetnik ethnic cleansing. It seems, however, that in all fairness you are essentially correct though. If we can agree to base our position on the above quotes, we might actually resolve this issue.

The essential point is that the vast majority of the text, Nuujinn, will have to focus on actual Chetnik atrocities, I hope you've come to terms with that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, this is absurd, you underlined the part attributing an assertion to me that I believe I did not make. The parentheses do not change that. You say I'm asking you to elaborate your position as to why the massacres took place against the Muslims, with regard to your insistence on over-emphasizing retaliation as a motive. I have no position on why the massacres took place against the Muslims--what I have is a source, provided by you, from Tomosevich, which attributes these massacres in part to a desire for retribution. And, honestly, I could not care less what you think is a stretch--that is truly immaterial to these discussions.

That being said, I am glad to see that we can agree finally on what this particular source says about the desire for retribution being a motivation to some extent for the massacres. And I will repeat that I am perfectly fine with treating the atrocities so long as we observe due weight and present them in context. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of content

Peacemaker, you say: "...the evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia." Wow... how you concluded that? FkpCascais (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, why you delete Nuujinn´s "Arbitrary break" and his post? diff FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"WoW"? :) I hate to break it to you but the fact that the Chetniks etnically cleansed parts of Yugoslavia is not only a very well sourced fact - its general knowledge. I have to say, "its more than a bit disappointing that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state." (Ramet p.145)

I did not delete any posts, but I did undo the creation of an arbitrary section, since it was placed mid-discussion, separating response from primary post. These things have to be done with some care, not quite so "arbitrarily", as it were. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais I believe Peacemaker67 is referring to the plans that came first out of Ravna Gora's intelligentsia, and from subsequent Chetnik conferences which advocated carving out ethnic ranges and moving populations willingly or not, even to the point of massacres. Definitely sourceable, but we need to take care as the common (US anyway) usage of ethnic cleaning is a synonym of genocide. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am missing some source, I don´t recall any premeditated plans of ethnic cleansing (as the movement intended to be Yugoslav), but the ethnic conflicts came as result of events, as described by Tomasevich in the source you presented a couple of comments above.

Just as note about Bosnian Muslim population and as response to insitance by direktor on this, lets not forget that the Bosnian Muslim SS Handschar units were all but unarmed and quite known for their "archivements". Also, it is interesting to see that Ustase were condemned in a resolution made by Bosnian Muslim elite for making attempts to turn Muslims and Serbs against eachother (Hoare, The history of Bosnia, p. 227). FkpCascais (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing quite a lot of sources, Fkp. But what do you mean by "premediatation"? None of this happened "by accident" or "spur-of-the-moment", these were well planned and executed military operations. But premeditation is hardly the issue here.

And lets get real, the Muslims of Eastern Bosnia were ethnically cleansed for same reasons they were ethnically cleansed in the '90s - they're in what Serbian nationalists perceive as Serbian lands. Its a repeat occurrence, Fkp, just like Croats with the Serbs of the Krajina. Those poor people were repeatedly terrorized in the most horrific way until they finally left - which is the current state of affairs. I think we've all heard of Srebrenica. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, your statement is a bit baffling to say the least. Please consult the former Formation and ideology section. (That is the version that existed before an IP and a banned user went on to butcher the section (and article in general) to the extant where there is no substance to qualify the section to be called "Formation and ideology".) I expect this to be our next section of focus as it too was removed with no consensus. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP and a banned user? Please feel free to restore the section now, Producer. From there we can work towards an agreement, if anyone has any objections at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to making any changes until we sort these issues out on the article's talk page. Please do not start another edit war by acting prematurely. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, you seem to be mixing again the events from different time periods.

Producer, I see all kind of texts are possible when one focuses only on one extreme POV. FkpCascais (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can see where you are going with mentions of the 90's as parallel to these events, Direktor, I would appreciate it if we could keep this discussion to the sources and events of WW2. @Nuujiin, you are correct about what I was referring to, the various documents produced and allegedly produced by the Chetnik movement regarding Greater Serbia. I consider we should be looking to briefly summarise Moljevic's work, the Djurisic instruction and its alleged forgery, and conclude what the drivers behind the Chetnik terror were, including the documents, the Ustasha terror etc. FkpCascais, I must say your reaction makes me concerned that you are not serious about using reliable sources. Surely you are not seriously suggesting we shouldn't mention the work of the Chetnik intelligentsia and the Djurisic instruction (along with its questionable origins)? I thought that what we are trying to achieve here is a discussion of what might work in terms of a summary of the Chetnik involvement in mass terror. I suggest you read the Tomasevich reference above for starters. But I would have thought the para I've proposed is a balanced and nuanced introduction to the issue as far as the Chetniks are concerned. What about the para I've actually drafted? Frankly, I don't support the recycling of previous sections, and I'm with Nuujiin regarding edit warring. Please bring your sources here and get agreement here before making changes to the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the other point I thought worth making at this point was that despite the fact that there is evidence of the promotion of 'Greater Serbianism' between the wars and the interest of the civilian Chetnik movement in it, it is appropriate in this article to start off this section with mention of the Ustasha terror because it started immediately after the invasion (within 3 weeks of the creation of the NDH), and thus pre-dates the WW2 Chetnik documents (and even Moljevic's work which he completed in June 1941 before joining the Chetnik National Committee) (Tomasevich Vol 1. pp166-169). I acknowledge Tomasevich's view on the primary motivation for 'cleansing actions' by the Chetniks was Greater Serbianism, but consider he should be balanced with Karchmar's reservations about the Djurisic instruction. There still is quite a lot of evidence for the Chetnik program for 'cleansing' and forcible movement of populations (not just Moljevic, but allusions to it by DM in a proclamation, the proposals of the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in late 1941, the manual produced by the Chetnik leadership in autumn 1942 and the various Chetnik conferences at Strmica, Sahovici & Ba). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all points. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, it is you who is having the initiative to make changes and it is you who should bring sources for them... I already asked you at the start of this thread to bring sources for this evidence you mention. Perhaps it would be easier for all of us if you list them here and then we can analise them and we can see what more specifical sources we need. Don´t forget that it is you who wants to make changes, and as far as I am concerned, I beleave the Chetniks and Mihailovic being monarchists is already sourced, just as the fact that they fought in an army named Yugoslav (not Serbian). FkpCascais (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow.. Fkp, are you seriously citing WP:BRD to someone? Do I need to post the dozens upon dozens of edits of yours where you brazenly edit-war to push new, opposed edits into the article, in spite of opposition on the talkpage - every time to present your Chetnik compatriots in as positive a light as conceivably possible. You may talk about my reverts, but those were the removal of new edits of the above sort you are "warning" against.

It is thus very strange and disturbing for me to see you lecture a new user for merely proposing(!) to enter new edits. You have forfeited that prerogative quite thoroughly. And to top it all off - Peacemaker has not said a single word without a direct quote to a source. Bear in mind that Wikipedia does NOT require that we copy down whole chapters and books - or a single word for that matter. Wiki policy is crystal clear: quote a reliable publication, with a page number. That's all. Your own personal requirements, and their reasoning, you can keep to yourself please.

Please do not try to bully people into writing entire books for you here on Wiki for free. You can buy or rent them like everyone else (and read some of them for once). If you find Peacemaker is lying at some point, which seems to be your implication, then please bring it up here at once. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please.

FkpCascais, in regard to the question of a program for a Greater Serbia, Peacemaker67 has done so already, by referencing Tomosevich on pages 166-169. We have 169-170 at Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations. See also Pavlowich, p. 112, Lamp, pp. 208-209, Macdonald, p.140-142, and Lerner, p.105. Now, from my reading of sources, this was to be a thought of by some as a Yugoslavia with the lines redrawn and populations relocated, converted or even wiped out--the proposals vary, as one might expect--and these were the generally the product of ideologue and civilian Chetnik groups formed as central committees and conferences. IIRC the notion precedes the war. But your point regarding Mihailovic's Chetniks as the official Yugoslav army is well taken. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please" what, Nuujinn? FkpCascais, who constantly and repeatedly makes unsourced claims, and who has not quoted virtually a single solitary source in the course of this discussion, is behaving most inappropriately to a new user who takes very good care never to make unsourced claims, and continuously lists supporting sources in accordance with Wiki requirements. He is implying Peacemaker is being dishonest.

The Chetniks were first formed as such and along those lines as described in sources, and then were given the status of Yugoslavia's armed forces. That fact alone does little to describe their plans and dispositions (and indeed, those of the government-in-exile). This was the case for two years, up until late 1943 and early 1944, when (under British and Allied pressure) the Partisans were recognized as the military of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you allow me, I´ll do this in parts: To begin with, I am reading Tomasevic pags. 166-169, and I dare to say Tomasevic makes a bit of his own conclusions in the intro. I mean, Moljevic is proposing "transfers and exchanges of population of Croats from Serbian lands and Serbs from Croatian ones", and says he supports this as way to avoid the extermination of Serbs undertaken by Croats and Muslims (!)... (Even nowadays there is a similar program of exchange between Serbia and Croatia). Also, the territory of the Greater Serbia was suposed to be within Greater Yugoslavia. Don´t forget that similar partition agreements were on table just before the war (Cvetković–Maček Agreement) in which Croatia was conceded more land while the rest of territory (beside Slovenia) were suposed to be left to Serbia. Lets also keep in mind that the copies of Chetnik maps were provided in Belgrade to Tomasevic in a strongly Tito dominated Yugoslavia and we all know the manipulation all sides used there. A copy of a map showing Serbia streaching till Czechoslovakia? Hmmm... seems more like an intentional presentaion of the Chetniks as megalomans, rather than some realistic serios project of the Chetnik movement during WWII... Just as way to see bias in Tomasevic words, we can see the sentence on p.169: Croatia reduced to less then half its territory and population (i.e. in terms of its post-1945 limits as SR Croatia). Now, lets see, he says reduced, in past tense, as if Croatia was tremendosly reduced, victimizing, however, he compares it with post 1945, when Tito gave the almost entire coast to Croatia and enlarged it. See the Chetnik map Croatia and the Croatia that existed when entering into Yugoslavia: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. He enumerates all the territories making it look like Serbs are taking land from others, but lets not forget that much of it was actually part of the "Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" (and we know what the territory of the last two was, see again the Cvetkovic-Macek agreement). I am not providing my opinion on this, just demonstrating that those same lands were suposedly "Serbian" by that time, and with a bit exagerated maps (coincidentally taking a bit of territory of each neighbouring country, just enough to create fear and anymosity of each country towards Chetniks, seems like a Tito plan of missinformation to me, more than real wish of Chetniks to make an enemy in each and every neighbour). And just to provide further misstrust in Tomasevic, on p.169 he claims again Moljevic plan of "envisages large-scale evictions of non-Serb population", perhaps same precipitation as earlier, when all we heard Moljevic saying was "population exchanges of Serbs from Croatia and Croats from Serbia." OK, I´ll read now the rest of the sources...

May I ask what is Pavlowich p.112 suposed to source?

OK, Lamp, pags.208&209, talks about NDH 3 plan for Serbs (convert, deport and kill). What about Chetniks?

MacDonald is brilliant! He says in 2 page something I am trying to explain in 2 years. (Seems he knew direktor and most of the authors of his sources from young age). Also, just as note, I don´t deny any crimes or massacres, but I do want to see an objective treatment of this issues, not a Chetniks-donne massacres list covering one third of the article.

Ough, Lerner p.105 is quite weak. He seems to have read the Instrukcije and he wants to present it as Mihailovic words. He says "A Chetnik military commander...". Well, in a assembly in Trebinje in middle of the harsh 1942 an unknown alleged commander may have said many things... This is nothing concrete neither official. Then he just copies the Instrukcije and attributes them as Mihailovic words...

Wait a sec. Are this the sources for the "evidence for a Chetnik plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Yugoslavia"? FkpCascais (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tomasevic p.77 confirms how Chetniks craated units formed by Croats, thus contradicting feelings of extreme hate between them. Seems Chetniks had a clear notion of the differences between civilians and active supporters of Axis among non-Serb nationalities. Again, I beleave that most matters on this are based on the questionable instrukcije, and on how there are describe, perhaps purpously, others as Croats, Muslims, etc. like if they were refering to the entire poplation, when in fact they were refering to the enemy forces (something like Fighting the Italians, Italian forces, not people). FkpCascais (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, FkpCascais, I get that you don't like Tomasevich. But all you provide in criticism of him (and other sources you don't like) is your own POV. Are you seriously suggesting that sometime after the war, the Yugoslav government bothered to falsify unpublished records kept in the Archives in Belgrade just in case they could give them to someone like Tomasevich one day in the hope that he would accept them on face value, refer to them in his book and use them to conclude that there was a Chetnik plan to use 'cleansing actions' to remove non-Serb populations from some parts of Yugoslavia? I've heard some conspiracy theories in my time, but that takes the cake! Also, check your copies of Tomasevich, p77 (in either volume) - they say nothing of the sort you are attributing to him. Also, one problem with your premise is that even if the Instruktion was a forgery and didn't come from DM (and I think that is debatable, given that Karchmar is the one who questioned it, most others just repeat his theory), Djurisic used the Instruktion to support his 'cleansing actions' around Foca and in Sandzak. He was a Chetnik commander, was he not? In fact, he commanded the Chetniks in Montenegro for long periods, so the combination of the fact that he used the Instruktion to support what he then did, then twice reported what he had done up his chain of command is evidence that there was a Chetnik plan to 'cleanse' parts of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

I am sorry, but these sources doen´t provide any major evidence for any exagerated conclusions of "ethnic cleansing"... I see population exchange suggestions and some retaliatory actions, but nothing that could suggest such strong accusations as you want to make. Also, putting a link to Ethnic cleansing at beggining of the section is inapropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm even more sorry FkpCascais. The sources are very clear with regard to the fact that the Chetniks did commit numerous acts of mass ethnic cleansing (Ramet e.g.). The Chetniks themselves referred to them as "cleansing actions" for crying out loud! (Tomasevich p.259) You can bandy words like "major evidence", "inappropriate", or "exagerated conclusions" (with one "g"), but as eloquent as you may be, your words count for very little or nothing. You do not get to decide what constitutes "major" evidence, you do not get to proclaim something as "exagerated", and you certainly are not the one to teach us all about propriety.

Either discredit the source, or accept what it states. There is no third way - however hard you may be working to invent one by expressing your opinions here and misquoting various guidelines. Fkp, you are here to protect the image of your Serbian compatriots. Your ability to do so in spite of sources, without sources, is amazing. The Chetniks are indeed the icons of 20th century Serbian nationalism, but at some point the charade has to come to an end, and the facts represented in accordance with the references. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then it shouldn´t be a problem for you just to tell me here which exact sources (with page number) support that. Note that naming "čišćenje" of anti-state elements and enemies into ethnic cleansing is OR. Name the sources please. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

English, please. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don´t you warry about that. Please, bring sources, as you are making one of the hardest possible accusations into the table without even one direct citation. Don´t forget that for such a hard accusation you need to have some scholar agreement. FkpCascais (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...and further, I will like to see MacDonald (p. 140-142) included in the article. He is a reliable non-local author, and he will balance the article as much of the article is sourced by Croatian historians. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. Calling what the Chetniks did (around Foca and in Sandzak) 'ethnic cleansing' is not OR. Ethnic cleansing is described in this way by the current entry: 'a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas'. The definition from the UN Commission of Experts in a January 1993 report to the Security Council was 'rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area' (quoted by Roger Cohen in 'Crimes of War 2.0'(2007) eds Roy Gutman, David Rieff and Anthony Dworkin, pp.175-177). The term was coined during the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 90's, so it cannot be expected that Tomasevich would have used that exact term in 1975, however Wikipedia applies it retrospectively to a whole range of events reaching well back prior to WW2, and Tomasevich and others use the term 'cleansing actions' so my view is 'if the ethnic cleansing shoe fits, the Chetniks wear it'. Now, let's look at that shoe...

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition and compare it to the Instruktion and the actions of Lasic's and Djurisic's Chetniks as an example of ethnic cleansing; 'a purposeful policy (this is the Instruktion - which uses the phrases 'ethnically pure', 'cleansing of the state territory of all national minorities' and 'cleansing the Muslim population from Sandjak and the Muslim and Croat populations from B&H' - Tomasevich, Vol 1, p179) designed by one ethnic or religious group (both ethnic AND religious ie with a few minor exceptions, the Chetniks were almost entirely both Serbian AND Orthodox) to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means (such as murder, extrajudicial executions, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas and wanton destruction of property - Cohen quoting the UN Commission of Experts report again, p175) the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group (Muslims or Muslims and Croats/Catholics) from certain geographic areas (the Sandjak and SE B&H respectively). Djurisic's Chetniks murdered or extrajudicially killed about 9,000 old people, women and children in Sandjak and SE B&H in two operations over about a month early Jan- early Feb 1943 (Tomasevich Vol 1 p258) during deliberate military attacks on civilians or civilian areas, after which the commander of these attacks, Djurisic, reported to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command (DM) the outcomes of the two operations. These people were civilians in anyone's language, and they burned down dozens of villages. These could only be described as 'violent and terror-inspiring means'. OR is 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists' (WP:NOR). What are you saying, that Tomasevich is not a reliable source (you can't possibly be arguing he's not published...)? You'll need to come up with a doozy of a list of sources to support a contention that Tomasevich isn't a reliable source. Or are you trying to say that because he doesn't actually use the term 'ethnic cleansing' (and instead uses 'cleansing actions') in his book, it can't be used to describe what occurred? Exactly what bit of Djurisic's Instruktion and his subsequent actions in the area of Foca and Sandjak in Jan-Feb 1943 are you suggesting doesn't match the Wikipedia entry definition of 'ethnic cleansing'? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, are you serious with all this? "You would like to see"? :) Unbelievable... - get the source and use him. Do not presume to order people around, and please contain your nationalist outbursts against various authors. You must understand that you are completely incapable of discrediting anyone on the grounds of your own ethnic bias, you are only capable of displaying your beliefs on various nations for all to see.

Furthermore, we shall not be playing your empty word games again, FkpCascais. The sources fully support the term ethnic cleansing, which means "the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity". It is, in fact, "more than a bit disappointing that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state" (that's Ramet, of course, as "no.1").

Both the Ustashe and the Chetnik forces committed massacres and atrocities against civilians and had fascist programs of ethnic cleansing. The Chetniks' victims were Croats and Muslims.

— Borneman p.150

Here's the link. This is a general assessment by the author on the Chetnik movement, describing them as having a programme of ethnic cleansing. This should go in the lede.

"From the summer of 1941, the Chetniks increasingly gained control over Serb insurgents and carried out gruesome crimes against Muslims of eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. Massacres of Muslims, usually by cutting the throats of the victims and tossing the bodies into various water-ways, occurred especially in eastern Bosnia, in Foča, Goražde, Čajniče, Rogatica, Višegrad, Vlasenica, Srebrenica, all in the basin of the Drina river, but also in eastern Herzegovina, where individual villages resisted Serb encirclement with ferocious determination until 1942. Chetnik documents - for example the minutes of the Chetnik conference in Javorine, district of Kotor Varoš, in June 1942 - speak of a determination to 'cleanse Bosnia of everything that is not Serb'. It is difficult to estimate the number of Muslim victims of this original ethnic cleansing, but it can be counted in the tens of thousands."

— Pinson p.143

Here's the link. The author (who is incidentally a Harvard professor since Stanford apparently does not meet your standards), here refers specifically to Chetnik "cleansing actions" in eastern Bosnia, unambiguously calling them "the original ethnic cleansing". Which is exactly what they were, incidentally, at least as far as the Balkans are concerned. Indeed, the author lists another incident where the Serbs themselves referred to their actions as "cleansing". As an addendum, we can note that Srebrenica itself had not suffered its first ethnic cleansing in the '90s. This should go in the main body of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, as you very well say, those are "'violent and terror-inspiring means'". But ethnic cleansing, with all what that means and carries, and with the link at top of the section, hmmm.... In my view we are still taking here mostly on Instrukcije and linking their words to some actions that occured. If this was a court, I will still consider all this circunstantial evdence, not direct.

Direktor, thank you for bringing new sources. I will see them. However, please stop your constant ethnic provocations towards me. FkpCascais (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Pinson, it is interesting to see the only review of the book: review. FkpCascais (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais. As far as what the term ethnic cleansing 'means and carries', it is the Wikipedia article that is linked, and so of course it is the Wikipedia definition we are using here. That's why I mapped the combination of the Instruktion and Djurisic's actions (both sourced) to the Wikipedia definition. So, in regards to my question re: the definition of ethnic cleansing, are you saying that the Instruktion was not a 'purposeful policy' of a group of Chetniks? Or is it another part of the Wikipedia definition of ethnic cleansing you don't think is met by the combination of the Instruktion and the actions of Djurisic's Chetniks? Please tell me what part. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, we cannot use Wikipedia as a source. With that in mind, I'll point out for the record that the definition you are using is actually that of the United Nations, and is probably the best one available. In accordance with the definition of the term, we are free to use it for events that fit said definition.

FkpCascais, there is nothing to "see". Chetnik actions in eastern Bosnia were ethnic cleansing, and the Chetniks in general had a program of ethnic cleansing. The issue is closed. Your "review" by the noted scholar Some Random-Guy :) is, I sincerely hope, some sort of a joke? I also very much doubt that is the "only review" this Harvard University publication got (but frankly, I could not care less). Presented with an author that brings forth (what you perceive as) "negative" information on the Chetniks, your standard immediate instinct is to attack the scholar. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor. My point was that FkpCascais and I have been discussing whether linking this section to the article on 'ethnic cleansing' is appropriate. I'm not using it as a source (that really would be a circular argument...). The source is obviously, as you say, the UN. It would seem self-evident to me that for it to be relevant and useful to link this section of this Wikipedia article to the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing, they would have to have something in common, ie ethnic cleansing as defined in the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing (which btw uses the UN definition). In fact, imho, it would be weird if you could link an article that was not relevant. However, if such relevance is not a Wikipedia requirement, I will get back in my box. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was making a preemptive point as a measure against FkpCascais quoting that policy to you as some sort of a "counter-argument". You are absolutely right in adding that wikilink: this is a free encyclopedia and your edit is explicitly supported by sources. The most important thing now is that the issue on the usage of the term ethnic cleansing is herewith closed, at least until negative peer reviews on Ramet, Pinson and/or Borneman are produced (which is highly unlikely), or until counter-sources of comparable quality can be presented explicitly denying the events in question constituted ethnic cleansing (which is even less likely). As a matter of fact, User:FkpCascais has never yet in my memory produced a single reliable source (on the Chetniks). We should now proceed to enter the sourced information from Pinson into the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I beleave it is not up to us to make conclusions or definitions. Crimes occured, it was a nasty war, but I hate to see editors doing their best just to collect most extreme info and trying to list it in the article without context. In my view the most far we can go is that "ethnic cleansing incidents occured" (with specific time/places), but most of the general idea you want to leave as some sort of ethnic cleansign programe is still based in obscure directives, without actual evidence of taking place. Also, we have contradicting info, such as Muslim nobles rejecting NDH plans for turning them against Serbs, and that would hardly happend if they were "ethnically cleansed" as referred... FkpCascais (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For the fifth time: you are not a scholar, and it is a matter of extreme indifference whether you think something is "the most extreme" or not. In a single post you say "I beleave it is not up to us to make conclusions or definitions" and then you go against sources, and make the conclusion that "the most far we can go is that ethnic cleansing incidents occured" (which is not what the sources say). Wow. When are you going to understand that you are not called upon to make assessments of facts and evidence, and that evaluating primary sources (i.e. "the evidence") on your own is against Wikipedia policy as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH?

As for your claim of "contradicting sources", lets analyze that in detail for the purpose of displaying in full light just how utterly flawed that claim is.

@"We have contradicting info, such as Muslim nobles rejecting NDH plans for turning them against Serbs, and that would hardly happend if they were "ethnically cleansed" as referred."

• First of all, that is from Pinson himself from the same page I quoted above. You did not find another source, you just used mine. And - amazingly - you are trying to use the same source as a "counter-source" against itself. I.e. the same source says they were ethnically cleansed just a few lines below! :)
• Second of all, you did not even read the source properly. The Muslim protests against the Ustase occurred before the ethnic cleansing took place. In fact, the author uses them as a lead-in to the ethnic cleansing: "But although the protest resolutions [against the Ustase] condemned 'a handful of so-called Muslims' who participated in the Ustasa repression, they could not placate Serbian royalist Chetniks and their commanders in Bosnia, who were bent on turning recompense for prosecution into an anti-Muslim campaign." The author then goes on with the text in my first Pinson quote above, describing the ethnic cleansing that subsequently occurred.
• Third of all, even if none of the above were true, and there was a Muslim declaration after the Chetnik "cleansing actions", quoted in some other hypothetical source - that would still not be a contradicting piece of information to what Pinson states. The fact that the Muslim elite issued an anti-Ustase declaration does not in any way contradict the fact that the Chetniks engaged in ethnic cleansing against Muslims. Even if it did not precede it (and it did).

So no, we do NOT have contradicting sources, or even "contradicting information". Unless you produce proper sources that really do support your position explicitly and without your "interpretations", further argumentation along these lines is nothing other than textbook WP:DISRUPTION. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor. In that case, I'm keen to see the section renamed. The subject of the section isn't ethnic conflict, although it is (Chetnik) terror tactics. I would also like to see some re-ordering of paragraphs into a chronological order. The brief summary of the history of the use of terror in the Balkans first, then the Ustasha terror, then a description of the three aspects of Chetnik terror, as 1. revenge - a response to the Ustasha terror in respect of the Croats in the NDH (perhaps using a couple of examples of early Ustasha killings); 2. as a policy of ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in the Sandjak, and Croats and Muslims in B&H (with the examples of Sandjak and Foca); and 3. as an ideology-driven strategy against the Partisans (not aware of any specific examples, the references just say it was widespread and no figures are available).

@FkpCascais. In the pages you refer to, MacDonald uses the incredibly vague term 'Croatian historians' (whoever they are) then throws all sorts of accusations at 'them'. He fails to take 'them' to task in any direct way, because all he does is make generalisations about 'them' without addressing which of 'them' says what. Also, about a third of the section that is on the DM quotes page is actually a criticism of Phillip Cohen, although he conflates Cohen into his generalisations about 'them'. MacDonald cannot be talking about Tomasevich. How do I know this? Because Tomasevich does not do any of the things MacDonald suggests his unnamed 'Croatian historians' do. It is hard to suggest that MacDonald is a valid critic of Tomasevich (or anyone else other than Cohen) when he doesn't even name him. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The title "Ethnic cleansing" was in the article for literally years and years until it was removed a few weeks ago by Nuujinn, who replaced it with his own euphemistic term "Ethnic conflict" (presumably since the word "conflict" starts with the same letter and is of comparable size to the word "cleansing"). As for "terror tactics", it seems rather redundant since "terror tactics" are the method by which ethnic cleansing is conducted. So the return of the "ancien titre" seems to me the most appropriate course of action. The current paragraphs should be re-organized, as you say, but also integrated with the blanked text below. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I object to completely removing terror aspect of the title as it not redundant and is also described by numerous reliable sources as such [14]. One mustn't forget that the section also discusses actions against Partisans which were done regardless of ethnicity. (Ramet, 146) I, instead, propose we replace the cop-out that is "terror tactics" with "terrorism". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Redzic, Mesic, Tomasevic and Ramet, the anti-Serbian club... FkpCascais (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, enough with these ridiculous attempts at derailing the discussion. Referring to reliable sources as the "anti-Serbian club" only shows you have nothing productive to add to the discussion and continue to refuse to get the point. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If some idiotic crap remains on wikipedia for years and years - as unfortunately, it often happens - that does not make it less ridiculous. I support any attempt to correct the repugnant piece of POV-pushing that has been inflicted on wikipedia for far too long. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

JJG, welcome, could you help here, please. Seems that some sort of offensive is going on and I am quite lonely here and limited to free online content. You have brought many valiable sources to these articles. FkpCascais (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, whats all this weird stuff about "offensives" and "enemies"? FkpCascais has just removed a link to his Serbian Wikipedia account from his userpage, that another user added, explaining in Serbo-Croatian why he did so: "No way... let the enemy work a little more to find out what I do on other Wikis."

User:Jean-Jacques Georges has been reported for his obscenities above. Fkp, you had best hurry and disrupt the thread with off-topic comments.. :) Maybe you can talk about my behavior a bit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you never change... Perhaps instead of trying to eliminate an editor that disagrees with you by blocking, it would be better if you focus on the discussion. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. It does not matter what or whom the thread is about, all you ever do is try to attack me with your nonsense. "80 reverts"? If you quote those lies and overt slander anywhere again without 80 diffs I will report you next, WP:NPA applies without question. And not just for that, rest assured: I've had enough. Attending admins will be forewarned that the only defense you ever use is attacking the user who reported you, instead of actually addressing your misconduct that is the subject of the thread, i.e. incessant talkpage WP:DISRUPTION and WP:BATTLE violations ("offensives and enemies").

As for User:Jean-Jacques Georges, should I be forced to read more of his disgusting "metaphors" on fecal matter I will keep reporting him until his behavior is taken seriously. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on this article and many other Yugoslav-oriented pages is unlikely to change until they become proper articles, which is far from the case. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think anyone here should cater to your opinion, if that is your implication. It would be instead advisable for you and User:FkpCascais to modify your respective definitions of "proper article" from "one who's POV I personally approve of" to "one that is entirely and faithfully referenced with reliable sources". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor and particularly PRODUCER. I am not suggesting removing the reference to 'terror tactics' in the title, what I am suggesting is that as the section includes both 1. terror tactics (as revenge against the Ustashas, and mutually against the Partisans), and 2. terror tactics AND ethnic cleansing in Sandjak against the Muslims and B&H against the Muslims and Croats, the section should be re-titled. I don't believe it should be just 'ethnic cleansing', as that would be conflating terror tactics and ethnic cleansing, which are not the same thing. I believe it should be something like 'Terror Tactics and Ethnic Cleansing', as the majority of the activities described are terror tactics so it should be first, but given the significance of ethnic cleansing as an issue, it should also be included in the title of the section. I also think the terror tactics and ethnic cleansing should be mentioned in the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point(s). Agreed. However, as a side note, I really do not think the "Ravna Gora movement" name is worthy of the lede. We already have two names for the WWII movement in there, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It was agreed here. I'd be happy for it to be moved to the early activities section in similar terms as the treatment in the DM article. I don't think it's a war-winner. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Another minor issue is "Homeland" vs. "Fatherland". "Jugoslavenska Vojska u Otadzbini" unambiguously translates as "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", "homeland" would be an entirely different word: "Jugoslavenska Vojska u Domovini" (both words, "otadzbini" and "domovini", correspond entirely with their English language equivalents). While, judging from Google tests, the sources are divided rather evenly on the usage (cca. 1,600 vs. 1,800 publications) it seems more appropriate to use the accurate translation, rather than the entirely wrong one with regard to the original meaning. In addition, Serbs traditionally most commonly refer to their country (in romantic terms) as the "fatherland". And the "motto" of the (Serb-dominated) Kingdom of Yugoslavia, to which the Chetniks professed allegiance, was "For King and Fatherland!". Indeed, this was the Chetniks' motto as well: the inscription on the Chetnik flag, which we have in the infobox, reads "For King and Fatherland!".

(P.s. I also removed the undue tag since it is not supported by MULTISSUES and was originally added due by Peacemaker due to the Partisan cooperation dispute which has since been resolved (it seemed a relic)). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

All I'm looking for on that is consistency. Tomasevich uses 'Homeland' throughout in this context. I wonder why? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, and honestly cannot say. You may be sure that it is a wrong translation. Croats refer to their country as the "homeland" (because of the anthem), however a great many sources besides Tomasevich also erroneously use that term in translating the full name of the Mihailovic Chetniks [15]. Its really an incredibly minor issue, I mean, whats the real difference between "fatherland", "motherland", "homeland" etc.? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor. Why the revert on the Turkish? What is your reference for that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that note on the origin of the word was in the article for ages now. It isn't mine but its certainly accurate linguistically (Serbo-Croatian has a very large number of originally Turkish words). See the Cheta article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In English both Homeland and Fatherland are OK. We already talked about this... Otadžbina´s literal translation would be Fatherland (Otac/Father), but it is also used as Homeland, as Domovina is rarely used in Serbian, being replaced by Otadžbina to refer to their homeland. In this context it definitely meant Homeland, as they were the forces of the exiled governament. FkpCascais (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Why resort to using the weasel words 'Terror Tactics' for the section and call it what it is: 'Terrorism and Ethnic Cleansing'. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider 'Terror Tactics' weasel words. Tomasevich uses the phrase 'Chetnik Terror', and the phrase 'Chetnik use of terrror'. The word 'terrorism' is not supported by any sources I ve read. Care to share yours? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich also refers to these acts as "Chetnik terrorist activities" (259). What I"m proposing is not that far of a stretch from "terror tactics". [16][17] "Terror tactics" is just a softer way of putting the same assertion and is not more in accordance with the sources than "terrorism". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In the US, both ethnic cleansing and terrorism are today heavily loaded words in english, perhaps more so than non english speakers may realize. I do not now how it stands in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand an others. The former has a strict international meaning, but in US common usage it means genocide (such as actions taken in the Burundi Civil War, and does not include less violent actions taken against others. In prior discussions the consensus was that we should avoid the phrase as we did not think it can be used neutrally to reflect the actions described. The word terrorism also has a strict legal meaning, but in US common usage has been stretched and bent so much following 9/11--it is applied to multiple murders, smuggling drugs, even the failure of municipal water handling facilities are thought to have their origins in acts of terrorism. Ironically, PRODUCER, terrorism is now the softer term since it is being overused by some who wish to "stir the pot" and create fear or media attention. I think the important thing to keep in mind it that these words do not really mean the same things they did 20-30 years ago.

In regard to the use of Fatherland versus Homeland, I sense something similar, as the former is similarly loaded by virtue of it's perceived association with the Nazis. I do not know this to be the case, but I expect that researchers working in the last century, if the terms are neutral and used more or less interchangably, would have avoided Fatherland due to the pejorative connotations. Serbs and other locals may not perceive such associations today, but English speakers of a certainly age likely will, so my suggestion would be to stick to how the sources translate the terms. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal past experiences with a term are irrelevant as to whether or not they should be used and will not be taken into account. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not revolve exclusively around some US point of view. The reliable sources above state the acts were "ethnic cleansing" and they will be referred to as such regardless of one editor's perceived sensibilities that one part of the world may have.

As for the Homeland/Fatherland dispute I recommend we go by the sources and insert "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland/Homeland" since both are in wide use. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you must either find a professional opinion that explicitly disagrees with "ethnic cleansing" as a description for the events in question, or you must discredit the authors who use it. There is no third option, and, as I said before, none of those two possibilities are very likely. You seem to be, as Producer points out, acting on the basis of your own personal preconceptions and sensibilities, which may or may not reflect the majority opinions of 300,000,000 US citizens, such as my own e.g. (I recommend you be more careful with regard to such claims in future).

PRODUCER, "terrorism", while it is an accurate description for some Chetnik activities, as a section title it is somewhat less accurate than "terror tactics". There is a subtle difference between "terrorist activities" and "terrorism" as a general term with regard to the Chetniks. There is an implication, which I believe Nuujinn is picking-up on, that the Chetniks were a terrorist organization - and that is, to my knowledge, not supported by sources. I'll have to go with Peacemaker here and support "Ethnic cleansing and terror tactics", though I also propose "terrorist activities" as a compromise, which is a direct quote from Tomasevich.

I also do not think we should use the inaccurate translation of "Otadzbini". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would support a compromise of it being "Ethnic Cleansing and Terrorist Activities". I agree with your translation as it is the most correct one and it baffles me that some sources including Tomasevich choose "Homeland" over "Fatherland", but we simply cannot throw "Homeland" aside. Again I think the best way to go about it is to use "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland/Homeland". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind I do like "terror tactics" better, but if Peacemaker finds the "terrorist activities" proposal acceptable then I could agree to that.

Maybe we can add a note on the alternative (wrong) translation in in the Formation and ideology section? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good option. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you can produce a source that describes the translation as bad. We're supposed to reflect what reliable secondary sources say. If the historians upon which we rely use homeland, that's what we should use. If you can find a discussion of the translation in the context of this article that criticizes that translation, that's fine, as would using "Fatherland/Homeland." But for us to discuss the accuracy of the translation in the article, or to choose to use a term not present in reliable sources, would be OR. And if a reliable source characterizes the Chetniks as terrorists, we can talk about using that term in connection to them, but otherwise, to use a loaded term such as that would be a violation of NPOV. If you two are going to criticize me for relying on what I know about the English language in an attempt to find a reasonable weight for a loaded term, please do take care to exercise similar restraint from using your own expertise and experience in the article itself. If you all have a source which uses Homeland, by all means bring it to the table. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This source may be interesting as it is a regional military dedicated website and it calls Mihailovic army as the "Corps of Yugoslav Army of the Homeland". The source may not be reliable for content, but it can be for seing the way proper domestic publishers translate it.

Another exemple is the book of Momcilo Dobric, which was translated into English as "Chetnik: The Story of the Royal Yugoslav Army of the Homeland, 1941-1945". FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

YA of Homeland has quite a lot of hits on google books: [18]. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we must be sure to include all the information from Bosnian Muslim scholars you demanded be stricken? And no, we will not start using unsourced internet websites as "sources".

I checked the sources usage of "Homeland" vs "Fatherland", and, as I said before, its essentially equal (1,600 vs 1.800). The translation "homeland", however, is wrong without question. It makes no sense to use the wrong translation, which uses an entirely different word, and is not used elsewhere enWiki, instead of an equally-used correct one. Of course, if Nuujinn and FkpCascais would care to make this an issue, they can. But frankly I consider it beneath me. I'll add an addendum to the (already over-complicated) paragraph on the name of the WWII movement that a slightly different translation is sometimes used, and thats it from me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor and Producer. As far as 'Terror Tactics and Ethnic Cleansing' etc are concerned, I do not support the use of the word 'terrorist' at all. Even if the word is used by Tomasevich, he uses 'Chetnik terror' and 'Chetnik use of terror' pg258 and elsewhere, a great deal more. In my mind, a NPOV approach would see the title be changed to 'Terror Tactics and Ethnic Cleansing' in that order, because the terror tactics chronologically preceded the ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing was a subset of the terror tactics.

@Nuujiin, as far as ethnic cleansing is concerned, Direktor has provided two sources for this phrase, and it is supported by a reference to the definition used by the UN, which coined the phrase. I disagree with your characterisation of ethnic cleansing as genocide. Ethnic cleansing is clearly less than genocide, as it can be achieved with less violent means that killing everyone you want to cleanse from an area. The Pavelic's 3-thirds policy had an element of genocide in it, as he identified the need to kill a third of Croatian Serbs (this is the genocidal bit), expel a third (ethnic cleansing bit) and convert a third to Catholicism (not sure what this is, but probably ethnic cleansing in some way, but some other war crime is probably more relevant). An alternative approach would be to use the title 'War Crimes', although I don't think it is as accurate and descriptive (and sourced) of the activities as 'Terror Tactics and Ethnic Cleansing'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The word ethnic cleansing is indeed very loaded, and very much beyond the description of the events where you want to atribute it. We lack consensus among modern-day historians that Chetniks commited "ethnic cleansing", thus what you propose is innadequate (specially not to give the importance to turn it into a section title). FkpCascais (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais, if we actually "lacked consensus in sources" then we would have something to discuss. We don't, so we don't have anything to discuss. FkpCascais, this is texbook WP:POVPUSHing, and it is very disruptive. You are wasting everyone's time and effort with pointless posts such as the above, and you are making it impossible to finish even the simplest issues. Are you at all capable of modifying your position in accordance with the sources?!, or are you only here to defend the Chetniks and promote your views regardless of how unfounded they are? You are clogging this talkpage with your "statements of opinion", knowing full well they are not relevant - if you continue like this, I will bring-up your behavior on the relevant admin noticeboard. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do lack consensus in in sources. But first, let's get the sources straight, as they are not Pinson and Borneman, but rather Bringa and Banac. The former are editors of anthologies, the latter the authors of the articles included in them. Bringa is a cultural anthropologist, not an historian. Banac is an historian, as well as an active politician. Both are reliable sources in general, but both use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in quotes, and that usually indicates distance or special usage. But most importantly, both use the term in passing mention to the Chetniks--Bringa's article is about the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the death of Tito, and Banac's article is about Bosnian Muslims from 1918 to 1992. We're talking about naming an entire section, so I do think we need more than two sources using the term in connection to the Chetniks in passing for sources--if those two are the best sources for use of the term in regard to the Chetniks, and other sources do not use the term, to name the section using the term is POV and UNDUE weight. Note that Ramet, who is not partial to the Chetniks, is clearly aware of the term, but doesn't use it in connection to the Chetniks. And we cannot rely on our judgement as to what ethnic cleansing is and who might or might not fit those criteria, as that is OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujiin. Putting ethnic cleansing in quotes can mean a whole range of things, and does not just mean special or unusual usage (or irony for that matter). It can just indicate that a phrase has a distinct meaning rather than just the sum of the words in the phrase, for example. It all depends on the context, and neither quotation contains anything that would lead me to conclude that special usage is intended. If you do see that, please explain what in the passage indicates to you that a special usage is intended. Having said that, I am happy with both sources as reliable, Banac's politics look to me to be fairly middle ground, he is a Yale Professor of History, and the article is about Bosnian Muslims, the ethnic cleansing of which we are discussing. I don't think we need to be getting too excited about a cultural anthropologist, he is an academic. I imagine that his discipline looks into ethnic cleansing and its causes. But they both deal with the Chetniks in a passing way. I don't think that excludes ethnic cleansing, but on reflection and taking the weight of the work of the main sources on this topic against the quotes from Banac and Bringa, I think we should err on the side of balance and just use the descriptions that are well sourced, which are 'Cleansing Actions' and 'Terror Tactics'. I don't agree with 'Terrorism' or 'Terrorist', even though Tomasevich uses 'terrorist activities'(Vol 1 p259), and 'genocide'(Vol 2 p747) to describe Chetnik activities but I think 'Cleansing' needs to be in the section title, rather than 'Ethnic' anything, or 'Genocide' for that matter. My suggestion is that we use "Terror Tactics and 'Cleansing Actions'". My point here (as I have stated before) is that the 'Cleansing Actions' are an important subset of the 'Terror Tactics', and 'Mass Terror' isn't accurate enough to cover the selective terror against the Partisans (Tomasevich Vol 1 p259-260). Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

...yes, but also Bringa is not an historian, and Banac ends up being local (Croatian)... Why shouldn´t I use the non-local sources I gathered here? Also, we could use more of David Martin. What about Marcia Kurapovna, a former international affairs correspondent with an academic background in East European history? She spent time in the field and witnessed events. What about Lindsay´s and Galbraith´s Beacons in the Night? Lindsay, a Stanford graduated, even spent some time helping Partisans in Slovenia, and was afterwords involved in the Plan Marshall. Galbraith was a professor at Harvard and Princeton.

These sources I gathered were not used during mediation because were considered less reliable then Tomasevic or Roberts. However, notece that they are all scholars, and in my case, none is local. I mean, if we use Banac, should I start searching for Serbian historians and their works? There are scholars in Serbia which are centralist in spiryth that made quite objective works about WWII. (Btw, Tone Briga seems local too...) FkpCascais (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peacemaker, I think "Terror Tactics and 'Cleansing Actions'" is fine, since multiple sources use those terms. And I am not saying that we could not use Banac or Bringa (who is a she, BTW)--they are academics and have expertise. I do think we would weigh historians more than cultural anthropologists, all things being equal. I'm not sure why they both use the term in quotes, and if they do intend a special meaning, I'm not sure what that would be, but as you note, it is primarily an issue of due weight, and as I've said I'm most uncomfortable basing a section title on passing mention in two articles. So I think we're generally in agreement.

Fkp, if you want to bring forth some sources for consideration here, I think that would be a good thing. Martin, as I recall, is writing based on his personal experiences, so that would be a primary source, and we could not give it much weight. Banac may be Croatian, but did his academic work in the US, so he has good credentials. We expect that authors will have some bias, we just try to balance out the viewpoints with due weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, ignoring sources you disagree with, and continuing with the discussion as if they did not exist, is starting to look like a behavioral pattern. Ethnic cleansing is sourced, both in general, and specifically for the events in question. You pretend continuously that there is some sort of scholarly disagreement with regard to "ethnic cleansing" as a term. Find evidence of scholarly disagreement, and stop ignoring references.

Sources on ethnic cleansing as a Chetnik policy

• Borneman p.150
• Pinson p.143 (in addition specifically classifying eastern Bosnia actions as such)
• Hirsch p.76 [19]
• Mulaj p.71 [20]
  • But if the end was the same (i.e. the creation of the Greater Serbian state), the accomplishment of this objective was envisaged to follow different routes in the Garasanin and Chetnik conceptions. The former advocated assimilation and control through cooperation, while the latter [the Chetniks] embraced the policy of ethnic cleansing."
• Haskin p.31 [21]
• Lindsay p.235 [22]

I could go on and on like this, but frankly its 01:30 here. It would be nothing short of propagandist and farcical to exclude the term in this context.

@Peacemaker, if I had not been clear enough, I support both "Ethnic cleansing and terror tactics" and "Ethnic cleansing and terrorist actions". Producer, I suggest we move on from this minor disagreement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you're evidently not reading what I'm writing. Pinson and Borneman are the editors of the books in which the articles appear, not the authors of the articles you're citing. Hirsch, like Banac and Bringa, using ethnic cleansing as a passing mention in a book on another topic, genocide in general. I also note that Hirsch is referencing Cohen's work for the use of the term, and, as we have discussed long ago, Cohen's a medical doctor, and thus not on the same par as professional historians. The Mulaj reference you've provided appears to be referring to work treating the cleansing of German from Yugoslavia under Tito and in Central Europe, so I don't see how it is germane (pun intended) to this article. Lindsey is a first person account, thus a primary source, and we do not use those for controversial claims, and he's not an historian, either. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are your serious? :) Your objections are either just plain untrue and/or unfounded in Wikipedia policy. Frankly I think the above post says a lot more about you than the sources. Before reading on, I suggest you read Wikipedia policy WP:V.

• I see no reason to think Pinson is not the author of that section, but it makes no difference whatsoever - it is a scholarly publication, and qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia (a Harvard University publication no less). The same goes for Borneman. Read WP:RS.
• We do not limit ourselves to historians, but to all scholarly publications. Objections along those lines are unfounded in Wikipedia policy, and reflect your own personal "standards". In other words, you two can probably just forget about instituting such "filters" of your own when it suits you. It strikes me that you never resort to such measures until faced with sources you disagree with. You yourself Nuujinn cited sources not published by historians. Such a tactic only reveals a deep bias and an inherent disregard for sources.
• Please read more carefully before you try to embarrass someone, as you may end up embarrassing yourself. Mulaj p.71:
  • "But if the end was the same (i.e. the creation of the Greater Serbian state), the accomplishment of this objective was envisaged to follow different routes in the Garasanin and Chetnik conceptions. The former [Garasanin] advocated assimilation and control through cooperation, while the latter [the Chetniks] embraced the policy of ethnic cleansing."
• "Passing mention"? :D First of all, what's a "passing mention"? Do you have a definition or does it only apply to sources you don't like? There are no "passing mentiones" above. Second of all: who cares even if we could define them as "passing mentions"? (and we can't). We do NOT EVER dismiss sources on such nonsense grounds. Find policy-based support for this nonsense.
• We ourselves do not EVER analyze or challenge the conclusions in a secondary publication, as that is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Further, if you think you can dismiss an entire source just because he at one point quotes a publication you dislike in some capacity... :) Find policy-based support for this nonsense.

This is the scraping of the barrel of the lamest and most unfounded "objections" on WP:V reliable sources I ever read in all my years on this project. Please, please, do not waste everyone's time until you come-up with some more convincing excuses to have your way in spite of a half-a-dozen sources. I think I've had quite enough of your omissions of sourced content to fit your pre-conceived narrative. I will introduce these sources into the article, if you really are serious up there, you can bring-up their reliability with the community and challenge their reliability, or the "passingness of their comment" :), or whatever you like

Finally, all this is in essence a vain and useless line of discussion, as your argument is flawed on yet another entirely separate level: you have not in any way demonstrated a conflict in the sources. I don't know if you understand this, but, unless contradicted by another source, - it takes only ONE (1) source to source something. The fact that you disagree with a source, does not mean we need to present dozens of them. (Though it does look like they would in either case need to be, scholarly, published by historians, but not local ones, not mention "ethnic cleansing" in what you perceive as a "passing mention", not quote any publication you dislike, and they absoltely must not be written by someone who's name is not written on the cover... etc. etc. xD) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In regard to Mulaj, you linked to page 72, not page 71, sorry about missing that. It's still passing mention in a footnote. We're talking about the title of a section. Our best sources do not use the term ethnic cleansing. You've found a half dozen sources that mention that the Chetniks engaged in ethnic cleansing, but none of them go into much detail regarding the Chetniks, and the works are not about the Chetniks. That's passing mention. I think entitling a section based on such sources is inappropriate, per WP:NOR (In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. We certainly should not name a section based on such (and that is what we're talking about). As always, if you think I've cited inappropriate sources, I'm happy to discuss them. And we do weigh sources, and use the best ones we can find. Now, if you wish to force your own way without trying to reach consensus about what we should do, I suppose that's what you'll do. And if you think I'm acting inappropriately, feel free to report me, again. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not define a "passing mention", and does not take into account whether a statement is part of a thorough treatise or several paragraphs dealing with a subject. You do, but frankly I could not care less. Not much more to say on this, you can bring it up in the proper noticeboard if you challenge the source on such grounds.
• If a source happens not to use a term, that does not mean the source is opposed to using the term. I.e. you are interpreting silence on the issue as opposition (this is of course forgetting the fact that the term in question has only been here 20 years and could not have been used by responsible historians beforehand). This sort of maneuvering is unacceptable. You will please either show that the usage of the term "ethnic cleansing" is disputed or you will stop pretending that it is. There is no third way about this.

I really said everything I had to say above. If you care to challenge the reliability of a source on the basis of WP policy, you know where to do so. Otherwise please do not attempt these games based on nothing more than your own preconceptions, beliefs, and "standards" - all invented just now for the sake of ignoring sources that oppose you. A fact need not be sourced by 20 different sources before it is used in the article.

In short, there is support for the term "ethnic cleaning" in more than half-a-dozen sources. There are no sources in opposition. The term is sourced for use in the article, and therefore also in a section title (which you changed). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What I understand we are expected to do here is weigh the sources appropriately. What you are suggesting, Direktor, is that the sources you have cited that use the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' (and thanks for the additional ones, which add to the discussion) outweigh the sources that don't - to the extent that we should use the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' in a section title and in that section, presumably, as well as in the lede given its importance. Frankly, given Roberts and Tomasevich were writing before 'ethnic cleansing' was coined as a phrase, it is not surprising they didn't use it, however, they didn't use it, so they go on the side of not using 'ethnic cleansing'. And they are big players on this topic. If the term had been in use when they wrote, they might have used it (I personally think they would have, but it's not my opinion that counts, it's the sources). BTW, it is clear that the author of the quote you cite from Pinson is not Pinson, he is the editor (and penned at one article in the book), and the author is clearly identified as Banac. I don't understand why you are continuing to suggest Pinson is the author of your quote. See p129 of 'Pinson', it says who wrote that article (Banac). If you look at the contents page, it is clear that Pinson wrote the article starting on page 84 (about the time period up to 1918), and Banac wrote the article commencing on page 129 through page 154. Therefore your quote comes from Banac in a book edited by Pinson. I note you don't consider it important, but I thought I should clarify. For the record, your additional sources are appreciated, but given the controversial nature of this article and the requirement to weigh sources, I continue to consider "Terror Tactics and 'Cleansing Actions'" is the appropriate title for the section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying, there is a crucial difference between not mentioning a term (for this reason or that), and opposing the use of a term. It is unfair, unscientific, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, to weigh sources that do not mention a term at all as being opposed to those sources that do use it. Allow me illustrate: even if all our sources mentioned throughout this discussion used the term "ethnic cleansing" the argument could still very easily be made that that particular term cannot be used because a majority of publications on Yugoslav history still do not happen to use it - as there will always be more publications that do not say something than do.

One of the most basic rules of Wikipedia is that, when a fact is sourced - only contradicting sources can be used to counter it. Where Nuujinn is going is actually quite typical of a user without sources behind him: "everybody is actually supporting him, they just don't say so". :) Nuujinn has thus far not shown a single source that would in any way suggest the Chetnik cleansing actions were something other than ethnic cleansing. And frankly, it is contrary to the common sense to suggest they were anything else.

Mark this: we are actually discussing whether operations, referred to frequently by their own perpetrators as "cleansing actions", with the stated purpose of removing populations from a given area, that fit exactly the UN definition of ethnic cleansing, and are cited specifically as ethnic cleansing in half a dozen sources - are in fact ethnic cleansing. And not on the basis of am actual disagreement in sources, but on the basis that some sources, written before the term "ethnic cleansing" was instituted, do not happen to use that term. I admit I find the absurdity of this situation more than a little vexing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then what about sources published after 1994 when ethnic cleansing was coined? I'm not being funny, but could you please refer me to the WP policy about only conflicting sources being used to counter a sourced fact? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

and briefly, on the Homeland/Fatherland thing, I am with PRODUCER who observed 'Again I think the best way to go about it is to use "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland/Homeland". We have a term where I come from for this level of nitpicking. Can we just get on with it? It seems rather unimportant in the scheme of an article which needs quite a bit of work. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V, but its a matter of basic logic: if something is sourced with published scholarly research one cannot very well counter it only with personal opinions (such as "those who do not mention the term are against it"). This applies in scientific debate as well of course.

In order to actually follow Nuujinn's logic on this, we would first have to define on our own what a "relevant source" is, and then we would need to list them all (thousands no doubt), determining which one of them includes the term "ethnic cleansing" (in a particular context!) and which one doesn't. We cannot select only the few sources we four individuals happened to pick. But I'm just having fun... aside from the fact that it would be an impossible, farcical affair, it would, as I pointed out, make no sense to begin with.

For example, if the cleansing actions were referred to as "ethnic cleansing" in say 4 sources, and were dubbed "lollygagging" in 5, we would have sources with differing views - and we'd have something to discuss. The situation here is simply that the usage of the term "ethnic cleansing" is sourced with regard to the cleansing actions, and well sourced at that, and we've seen no reason whatsoever to think there are opposing views in the scientific community.

As for the "fatherland or homeland" thing, I wash my hands of the whole matter... *goes to the bathroom to ceremoniously wash his hands* --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland/Homeland" is something we don't have a source for, and it doesn't read well. We have both terms in the WWII section, and I think that suffices, myself, to meet any concerns regarding the "real" translation. Ideally, what we need is a source that discusses the translation of the name, but I haven't found one yet.

In one respect, DIREKTOR is correct--to the extent that we have conflicting views in reliable sources, we represent them, but we observe due weight when we do so. Here, we're trying to settle on the title of the section--we have numerous reliables sources which treat the Chetniks in depth, before and after the early '90s when the term came in use, but only a handful of sources that use the term in connection with the Chetniks, and none of those treat the Chetniks in significant depth. So we weigh those uses against the other sources we have, and decide if those handful of sources that do not deal with the Chetniks in depth carry enough weight to justify naming the section with a very strong term that other sources, which do treat the topic in depth, refrain from using--we do this kind of thing everyday on WP, see Wikipedia:Due#Undue_weight for the policy. I think DIREKTOR's case in this regard is very weak, but that's just my view. As for DIRKETOR's desire to link the cleansing actions to the UN definition to justify use of the term here in a section title, see WP:SYNTH--I think there's no case there. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are literally thousands upon thousands of sources that in one way or another deal with the Chetniks and their activities during WWII [23], as is the case with most subjects. Again, it is both practically inconceivable and logically self-defeating to propose that each claim needs to be balanced against all the sources that do not mention it or do not touch upon the issue (in this case the issue of whether the "cleansing actions" were ethnic cleansing). The sources which support the term are reliable and relatively numerous, and there is no reason whatsoever to think they are in some way radical or biased. There is also no reason to think that there is any sort of dispute or disagreement on this issue in the scientific community.

I agree that it really is WP:SYNTH to define events on our own, but I accepted that and posted high-quality sources that "synth" it for us. But nothing is apparently enough. Now we see it is suggested that those sources that do not synthesize these events somehow support you.

And that's just part of the story. I'll say again: we are actually discussing whether operations, referred to frequently by their own perpetrators as "cleansing actions", with the stated purpose of removing populations from a given area, and are cited specifically as ethnic cleansing in half a dozen sources - are in fact ethnic cleansing. And not on the basis of am actual disagreement in sources, but on the basis that some sources, written before the term "ethnic cleansing" was instituted, do not happen to use that term. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The term cleansing is applied in military purpouses, and it is not up to us to interpret it in the worste connotation (ethnic cleansing). It can easily mean, cleansing of enemies... The word used, čišćenje (translated as cleansing), and current day meaning of cleansing in ethnic cleansing, is coincidental. FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all interested in your nonsense "conclusions". Had you actually read any of the sources you would not make such uninformed posts. And anyway, the changes are not based on guessing and conjecture such as the above kind you peddle continuously, but on real sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, your comment is absolutely out of touch with the sources and showing of your lack of knowledge on the matter. Do not bog down these discussions with your theories and such nonsense.

Given that we are still at a disagreement about the title of the section I think we should put it aside for now and focus on the bigger picture. We should tackle the information within the section and then revisit the title afterwards. This will allow us to better assess the situation. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PRODUCER, however, I am not sure what you are suggesting, leaving it as ethnic conflict or as ethnic cleansing? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not mind leaving it aside for now, but I think the best course would be to go with "Terror Tactics and 'Cleansing Actions'" as the name of the section, as that is clearly sourced. DIREKTOR, I'll point out again that right now, we're talking about the section title, nothing else, and half dozen sources which do not treat the Chetniks directly and in depth do not deserve the same weight as those which do. I have no problem attributing use of that phrase to the sources that use them so long as we also attribute other phrases used by other sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good provisional solution, but I wouldn't put too much worry on what the title is for the time being. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)