Wikipedia

Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4

< Talk:Pavle Đurišić
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Joy in topic Iron cross controversy
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

First uprising against Italians - then Itallian occupation of Montenegro

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Solved:The timeline issue of the section titles is resolved.

There is something wrong with timeline and sections of this article. The section about uprising in Montenegro precedes the section about Italian occupation of Montenegro which starts "In October 1941, Draža Mihailović...." although Italian occupation began much earlier.

Only after Italy occupied Montenegro there was uprising, not before.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering the talkpage, Antidiskriminator.. -- Director (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
this was just not specific enough, I have modified the section title to reflect the content. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is still not specific enough, too long and against guidelines.
Maybe it would be better to create separate subsection on Italian occupation above small portion of the text beginning with "In April 1941". The section currently named as "Italian occupation of Montenegro 1941–1943 following the uprising" could be renamed to "Montenegrin anti-communist resistance". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
lol. Now that would really be against NPOV. My POV alternative would be "Montenegrin Chetnik collaboration with the Italians". Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Collaborationism is cooperation with enemy forces against one's country. Although sources mention collaboration of Chetnik with Italians in case of the events described in this section it was obviously not collaborationism. In Montenegro in 19942 Chetniks cooperated with Italians not against their country, Yugoslavia, but to protect their country and its people from communist irregulars and their atrocities. The objective of this cooperation was not collaboration. The source says that regarding Italians Chetniks "had no political objectives except to crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population". That is exactly what is explained in this section. It is predominantly about anti-communist resistance starting with Mihailovic's instructions (which are actually disputed by more than two historians) which emphasize that Chetniks should not cooperate with Partisans (overlooked by you, though important for the context of future events).
  • The context of the events explains such objectives of Chetniks. At the beginning of 1942 communist irregulars started with massacres of civilian population and only in order to protect people from communists and their atrocities Đurišić and other Chetniks had to cooperate with Italians. And they were successful. "During the rest of 1942, Italian operations in conjunction with their Chetnik auxiliaries forced the remaining Partisans out of Montenegro". Then they held a conference in Shahovici and confirmed their political objectives. To restore "pre-war status quo in Yugoslavia", not Socialist Yugoslavia nor Italian occupied Yugoslavia. This political objective would contradict collaboration title of the section dedicated to anti-communist resistance.
  • This is not the first time you laugh at me. I don't think there was anything funny in my comment nor in the events which were subject of this discussion. Please don't laugh at me anymore. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Believe you me, it is funny to me. In both meanings of the word. However, when I find your comments amusing in future, I will endeavour to restrain myself from expressing my mirth on the talkpage. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also a chronological mistake in section about 'German occupation of Montenegro 1943–1944'. It starts with spring of 1944.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that adding only half of the sentence about Italian capitulation at the beginning of this section do not resolve this issue. There is complete paragraph in the previous section which explains events after German occupation of Montenegro.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on recent attempts to resolve this issue (diff, diff and diff) it is obvious that it is not only me who think that there is a problem with timeline and sections of this article. Therefore it was wrong to emphasize that it was only my opinion that this issue is not resolved (diff). Renaming the section about Italian occupation to: Italian occupation of Montenegro (October 1941–December 1942) could mislead readers to believe that Italian occupied Montenegro only in period October 1941–December 1942.
I propose four main subsections within WWII:
  1. Italian occupation of Montenegro,
    1. Uprising
    2. Case white
    3. Case black
  2. German occupation of Montenegro
  3. Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction
  4. Aftermath.
There is a problem with Aftermath section also. It is within WWII main section but contains information about events in 2010. All such events should be moved into Commemoration section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Y
I moved part of Aftermath section which described after WWII commemoration events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree the following text should be moved to the Commemoration section. "Serbian diaspora in the United States set up a monument dedicated to Pavle Đurišić at the Serbian cemetery in Libertyville, Illinois. The management and players of the football club Red Star Belgrade visited it on 23 May 2010." Frankly it is not relevant that there are monuments to DM and MD there, the section is about commemoration of Djurisic. A fulsome explanation of "what monuments to who are where" belongs in the Chetniks article, not this one. I have come round to the idea that the sections need to be re-titled to reflect not only content but chronology, I am not happy with the current sections, but I do not agree with your proposed section headings because-
  1. Almost all of Djurisic's combat involvement in Case White and most of the massacres conducted just prior to his engagement in combat operations occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Montenegro, so it would be inappropriate to indicate via a sub/section heading that Case White was part of the Italian occupation of Montenegro.
  2. Djurisic's involvement in the massacres is a significant aspect of the article and the content of the Case White section and should be included in the relevant sub/section heading. Perhaps so much so that the massacres should in fact have their own section.
  3. Djurisic's capture in the preliminary operation of Case Black on the other hand occurred in Montenegro although Case Black chronologically followed Case White. The fact that he was captured is significant and should be mentioned in the section heading.
  4. Djurisic's release is also significant and should be mentioned in the section heading.
Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose to deal with timeline issue step by step. First to create basic section structure like this:
  1. Italian occupation of Montenegro (with several subtitles which can remain unchanged for now)
  2. German occupation of Montenegro
  3. Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction
  4. Aftermath.
then it would be easier to agree about each subtitle within lower structure. Taking in consideration that article says that: "Late in the planning, the Italians began to prepare and equip Chetnik detachments, including that of Đurišić, for involvement in the operation... As Italian auxiliaries, Đurišić's detachment was so dependent on the Italians for arms and transport that it had not left Montenegro until 18 January 1943, only two days before the first phase of Case White was to begin." it will not be mistake to leave Cases White and Black within Italian occupation section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that giving precedence to plain chronology over content in the structure does not suit the key aspects of the content per my points above. I also disagree with the focus on occupation regimes ahead of the events directly related to Djurisic, ie massacres, and Cases White and Black. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have re-structured the sections and subsections to place the uprising and his collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro clearly in the context of the Italian occupation of Montenegro (per your 1. above), however I have retained the remaining 'event' based section headings. Neither the events of Case White and the "cleansing actions", or Case Black and his capture occurred in the context of the German occupation of Montenegro. Case White and the cleansing actions did not occur in Montenegro at all, and whilst Case Black and his capture did occur in Montenegro, the Italians were still in occupation at that time. It is therefore inappropriate to put Case White in a "German/Italian occupation of Montenegro" section, and it is also inappropriate to put Case Black in a "German occupation of Montenegro" section. As they are dealt with chronologically, it is much clearer to use 'event' based headings for the latter subsections rather than 'occupation' based ones. So that is what I have done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The timeline issue of the section titles is finally resolved.
  • You overlooked what I wrote. That can happen with late night editing. The section structure I proposed did not place Case White and Case Black within German occupation subtitle so there was no need to explain that they did not occur "in the context of the German occupation of Montenegro". I actually proposed those subtitles to remain within Italian occupation section, with unchanged titles, for now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments3 people in discussion
  Unresolved
 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede and two times in the main body of the article which describes the events, while information about Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Iron Cross award is highly notable, but it is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the main text. It also appears in the caption of an image. There was no information about when he was awarded the Star of Karageorge so I could put in the right section chronologically, so I put it in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning the image. I forgot about it. That means that this is even more against WP:NPOV because mentioning Iron Cross in the caption of an image means that there is additionally a collage picture of two pages regarding the Iron Cross.
Karađorđe's star is also very notable award. It is against WP:NPOV to give so much more weight to information about award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to him by Yugoslav government.
There was information about when it was awarded. After Durmitor operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as their relative notability, the Order of Karageorge was awarded to quite a number of Chetnik commanders, but only one Chetnik commander I am aware of was awarded the Iron Cross, which makes it more exceptional (ie it is a unique award to a Chetnik, unlike the Star). I listed the Star first in the infobox because it is standard practice to include indigenous awards before foreign ones, and that is as it should be. Your NPOV accusations are wrongheaded. The policy says 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' My point is that it is mentioned once in the lead, once in the text, and given the exceptional nature of the award, the text is supported by the image. I would not be against including an image of the entitlement document for his Star if one was available, but I am not aware of one. The Iron Cross is fairly and proportionately represented when you take into account the uniqueness of the award. I see no bias in supporting the text with an image. And by the way, which Durmitor operation are we talking about and where is the source that says what date the award occurred? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That was military operation conducted in August 1944.
Jozo Tomasevich mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after that Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded. On the other hand, Karađorđe's star was very rarely awarded only for exceptional merit. Even if it is undisputed that Đurišić ever received it (which is not) I still believe that it is against wp:npov to give so much more weight to information about Iron Cross award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to Đurišić by Yugoslav government.
I propose to remove lede sentence and image collage with its caption.
That way iron cross information would remain in the infobox and once in the text of the article, like information about Karađorđe's star. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to produce reliable sources which dispute that he received the Iron Cross. Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross. Many Chetnik commanders received the star and off the top of my head this included Mihailović, Jevđević, and Pećanac while on the other hand no other received the Iron Cross. Given the nature of the subject I believe the current version is neutral. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross." - Yes, it is this source written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: According to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that some sources that Maclean was aware of said that he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This issue is not resolved:
  1. There is nothing unique with this award which was given to almost anybody (more than five million totally) comparing to Karadjordje's star which was given to very limited number of people.
  2. Iron Cross assertion is based on unreliable source.
  3. Iron Cross assertion is disputed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, whatever chief. Please stop with the 'Resolved' and 'Unresolved' nonsense per PRODUCERs comments earlier. My point about resolving a few of these sections is that the 'label' you are using just reflects in what areas the article disagrees with your point of view. It is a personal view of yours, doesn't mean anything to the community and is completely pointless. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic is based on its context, essentially a combination of two facts, the fact that it is a German award and the fact it was awarded to a Chetnik. A completely unique set of facts as far as I am aware. The issue of the reliability of the source is under discussion at RSN. The assertion that the Iron Cross award is disputed is yours, and you have been asked for reliable sources that dispute it. That remains under discussion above. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the article violates NPOV in this respect is being discussed at the WP:NPOVN. There is a backlog, but I will wait for a consensus to develop there. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The NPOVN request went nowhere. I stand by my assertions regarding balance between the two awards. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation about "The uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic". I think that is exactly the reason why Wikipedia:Verifiability policy should be respected in this case: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Taking in consideration two RSNs about Cohen (first and second) I am afraid that Verifiability policy is not respected in this case. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome, but clearly you have misunderstood what I said. Firstly I did not contend that the claim about the Iron Cross was exceptional, I said it was unique in the context as far as I am aware (as it is the only known award of the Iron Cross in any class to a Chetnik). That does not make the claim that he was awarded the Iron Cross an exceptional one, because "exceptional" and "unique in context" do not mean the same thing, especially not in terms of WP:V. In fact I not only don't agree at all with your contention, I consider it counter to plain logic. Cohen does not present the award of the Iron Cross to Đurišić as his opinion. He presents it as a fact, a fact for which he cites three other authors and a primary source. Two of the authors he cites were themselves Nazi collaborators (Božidar Kostić and Ratko Parežanin) who were senior members of ZBOR and worked for Dimitrije Ljotić as did Đurišić as commander of the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps, which was part of Ljotić's ZBOR party army the Serbian Volunteer Corps. Neither of them would have had reason to say bad things about a fellow ZBOR collaborator such as Đurišić. In fact, they are exactly the sort of people you would expect to deny that Đurišić was awarded the Iron Cross. Yet they apparently not only failed to deny it, but actually stated that he was awarded the Iron Cross, because Cohen cites them to support the fact that Đurišić was awarded it. Cohen further cites Mladen Stefanović (who published a book on the subject of ZBOR which is itself cited by numerous scholarly authors such as Pavlowitch, Ramet and Haynes & Rady) and then he further cites the primary source which consists of captured German records held in US Archives. On the other hand, no WP:RS has yet been produced on this talk page to even challenge the fact stated by Cohen that Đurišić was awarded the Iron Cross. I suggest you lay off this thread until we have dealt with your sources in the other thread. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I misunderstood you. Did you say:
the award, in the context of comparison to the Star, which is what this thread is supposedly about, not the claim itself. They are two different things . And I see you've reverted to quoting out of context again. Please stop it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you able to fulfill the request of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and present exceptional sources for exceptional and unique Iron Cross awarded to Pavle Đurišić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This is straight-out WP policy shopping. You fail to get any traction with NPOV, so you switch policies and misrepresent what I have said in the hope of getting your way. It's incredibly transparent, and not for the first time. Your response is dismissive, presumptive and exceptionally obtuse. In fact, I fail to see why you (of all people) would think WP:V applies. After all, you yourself have said "It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded.". You say it is not exceptional, in fact you say it is a very common award. You can't have it both ways. In fact. if anything is an "exceptional claim" it is that he was awarded a high honour by the Yugoslav government. Maclean is the only source we have for that at present, and he is far from an exceptional source, non-university press, first person account etc etc. I think we should really have a close look at that really exceptional claim, perhaps it should just be removed while we conduct some further research. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Iron Cross award itself is not exceptional. It was awarded more than five million times. Almost everybody got it. You are right that Iron Cross awarded to Pavle Đurišić is indeed exceptional and unique. Will you please clarify if you are able to fulfill the request of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and present exceptional sources for exceptional and unique Iron Cross awarded to Pavle Đurišić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't apply, by your own admission. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please note that you used Maclean, whom you described as "far from being an exceptional source" to support the claim about Iron Cross awarded to Đurišić. I don't object removal of claims you based on Maclean (Iron Cross, Karađorđe's star, Radio Belgrade praises) until some further researches are conducted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The EKII is not based on Maclean, it is based on two Cohen books, one book by Maclean and one by Funke and Rhotert. Maclean is only one source of three secondary sources (treating Cohen's two books as one source) and one primary source that support the completely unexceptional award of one of the 5 million EKII's to Djurisic. None of which are challenged by a single WP:RS. I have no intention of horse-trading with you in the manner you allude to. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources used to support Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic are exceptional:
  1. Maclean - "far from being an exceptional source" (your words - diff)
  2. Cohen - taking in consideration two RSNs about Cohen (first and second) he is also far from being an exceptional source
  3. Funke and Rhotert in their book (look at page 52 (link) used page 45 of Cohen's book as source for Iron Cross claim. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Taking in consideration that you emphasized that Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic is more exceptional than Karađorđe's star (which was supported by three sources I presented on the talkpage diff) I think that your removal (diff) of assertion about the Karađorđe's star without removal of Iron Cross award is wrong and disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please address the issue of the removal of the Star in the section I have created for that purpose, and please address the queries that I made about the WP:RS of the sources you claim challenge the Iron Cross in its thread. Despite the fact that you are the one who has created all these separate sections, you yourself are the main offender in going off the topic of any given thread. This constant obfuscation by mixing threads and changing tack mid-thread because you fail to get traction with your initial approach must be very confusing to any editor attempting to follow discussions here. I myself struggle to follow your line of argument in many threads for that very reason. You have not responded to any of my points raised in response to your queries, you merely restate your own. Classic (WP:HEAR). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Will you please clarify if you are able to fulfill the request of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and present exceptional sources for exceptional and unique Iron Cross awarded to Pavle Đurišić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already responded to this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Will you please be so kind to present a list of exceptional sources for exceptional and unique Iron Cross awarded to Pavle Đurišić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I will not, because it does not require exceptional sources because it is not exceptional according to WP, and WP policy does not require it. Here is why. As I have stated elsewhere, a claim is only exceptional per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The WP:REDFLAGs for exceptional claims follow.
  1. the claim is neither "surprising" (given that Djurisic collaborated extensively and closely with the Germans between the time they arranged for his release and equipped him and his soldiers and the time of the award) nor "an important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources". We now have Cohen, Deakin, Funke & Rhotert, Minić, Ličina and Pajovic, and we have Cohen citing Kostić, Parežanin and Stefanović for the Iron Cross award, and a primary source from US Archives to back it all up. So no WP:REDFLAG there.
  2. whilst you claim the Iron Cross award is challenged, you have not produced WP:RS that challenge the fact that he was awarded it. Even if it was challenged by WP:RS, the Iron Cross award is not "supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those that have an apparent conflict of interest", so it doesn't raise that REDFLAG either.
  3. the sources that support the Iron Cross award don't "seem out of character or against an interest the source had previously defended". I cannot see any way this could be argued given the range of sources that support the Iron Cross award, and they range of backgrounds they come from. No REDFLAG there either.
  4. the sources that support the Iron Cross are not "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" (ie historians). Elsewhere you have mentioned a couple of Serbian historians that take a different view, but they have yet to be accepted as WP:RS and given at least one of them was involved in the "revisionist" re-writing of Serbian secondary school history books aimed at whitewashing Serbian collaborationists, I look forward to discussing their reliability in the future. In any case, two Serbian historians do not represent the "prevailing view". No REDFLAG there.
so there you have it, the Iron Cross award is not exceptional according to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and does not require exceptional sources, so drop the WP:STICK. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing in article space

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article belongs to the community, like all articles. If anyone has concerns about perceived deficiencies with the article, they should edit the article boldly in accordance with WP:BRD. Choosing not to edit in article space, and instead only make critical comments on this talk page will run the risk of being ignored, by me at least. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Critical comments pointing out valid flaws are constructive and should not be ignored if they can be used as a tool to improve the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, on this article and in respect of your involvement with it, they are pointless unless you actually wish to edit the article, or at least propose an actual edit. As far as my interaction with you on this article is concerned, my firm position is that you should edit in article space and discuss here if you are reverted or your edit is modified to the extent that you believe the point has no longer been made. That is strict WP:BRD, and given our ongoing interaction here and elsewhere I believe that will avoid needless discussion and miscommunication here. So, in response, despite your assertion that your comments should not be ignored, I will be ignoring your future posts on this talk page unless they relate to a revert of an actual edit of the article, or where you include in your post a draft of the sentence or paragraph you believe needs to be added/modified. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Its not so much that you "have to" edit the article to participate on talk - its simple WP:NOTFORUM. You don't need to actually edit the article, but you do have to be way more specific in exactly what changes you're proposing. General vague complaints can and should be simply ignored, or even just deleted, as per policy. Without focusing the discussion vast amounts of time and effort are spent without ever there being a chance to arrive at an agreement or consensus. -- Director (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claim regarding Star of Karageorge supposedly awarded to Pavle Djurisic

Latest comment: 12 years ago32 comments4 people in discussion
Objection withdrawn

Pavle Djurisic was apparently awarded the Order of the Karađorđe's Star which is, according to Order of Saint Prince Lazarus the second highest chivalric order ever created in the Kingdom of Serbia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and in fact the highest order that could be awarded to a person who was not the King or heir to the throne. This is an exceptionally high award, akin perhaps to the Order of St Michael and St George in the British system. At present the only source for this award is a single mention in Maclean's book. I consider that this award clearly meets the criteria for an "exceptional claim" which requires "exceptional sources". I have removed the material from the article regarding the supposed award of the Order of the Karađorđe's Star until "exceptional sources" are produced to support this "exceptional claim" per WP:V. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking in consideration that you emphasized that Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic is more exceptional than Karađorđe's star (diff) I think that your removal (diff) of assertion about the Karađorđe's star, which you justified with lack of exceptional sources, without removal of Iron Cross award on the same basis is wrong and disruptive. Additionally, it is incorrect that "the only source for this award [Karadjordje's star] is a single mention in Maclean's book". You know very well that I presented three sources which support this assertion (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Source number 4: Redžić, Vučeta (2002), Građanski rat u Crnoj Gori : 1941-1945. godine [Civil war in Montenegro: 1941—1945] (in Serbian), Podgorica: Stupovi, p. 566, OCLC 74315130, Кнежевић је на то одговорио "да је мајор Ђуришић до јуче био капетан, да је велики јунак, да је одликован Карађорђевом звездом [Knežević replied that "mayor Đurišić was captain until yesterday, a great hero, awarded with Karađorđe star"] {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Source number 5: Kesar, Jovan (1990), Draža Mihailović pred sudom : ne osećam se krivim [Draža Mihailović at court: I don't feel guilty] (in Serbian), Belgrade: Akvarijus, p. 62, ISBN 9788675030133, OCLC 26366136, оптужени Слободан Јовановић и остали нису остали само на речима похвале упућеним Дражи Михаиловићу. Они деле највиша војничка одликовања (Карађорђеву звезду) Михаиловићевим командантима: Павлу Ђуришићу,..[Slobodan Jovanovic and others did not only praised Draza Mihailovic. They awarded highest military awards (Karadjodje's star) to Mihailovic's commanders: Pavle Djurisic...] {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong to compare Kingdom of Yugoslavia awards and decorations with those of the UK etc. Those were the final years of the Kingdom's de jure existence (it had already ceased to exist de facto), and awards were being thrown around just to try and keep wayward commanders more inclined towards the government-in-exile.. I am not at all surprised he was awarded the star (and it seems he did distinguish himself early on in the conflict) -- Director (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Source number 6 Ćuković, Mirko (1964), Sandžak (in Serbian), Belgrade: Nolit, Prosveta, p. 375, OCLC 443514239, Тог Павла Ђуришића одликовао је краљ Петар орденом Карађорђеве звезде са мачевима [This Pavle Djurisic was awarded by King Peter with Karadjordje's star award with swords] {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Source number 7 Joksimović, Savo (1963), U gerili [In gerilla] (in Serbian), Titograd: Grafički zavod, p. 53, OCLC 22103730, Павле Ђуришић се стриктно придржавао свих обавеза које је преузео према својим господарима. За овакав успјех у издајничкој работи издајничка краљевска влада у Лондону одликовала га је, ускоро послије овог споразума, "орденом Карађорђеве звезде" [Pavle Djurisic strictly followed his obligations he undertook toward his lords. For this success in treacherous activities treacherous Royal Government in London awarded him, soon after this agreement, with "Karadjordje's star"] {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, certainly quite a few sources of some sort or another. If you believe that these sources are reliable and consider the information about the Star should be restored then it is up to you to do so, providing appropriate citations to reliable sources when you do so, taking into account WP:V. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I already explained what I believe (diff). I believe that your removal (diff) of assertion about the Karađorđe's star, which you justified with lack of exceptional sources, without removal of Iron Cross award on the same basis was wrong and disruptive.
  • You can repair consequences of your Karađorđe's star disruption if you:
    1. also remove Iron Cross assertion because of the lack of exceptional sources or
    2. revert your removal of Karađorđe's star and present exceptional sources for (more) exceptional Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources presented in this and previous thread regarding this award

There are supposedly seven sources for the exceptional claim of the award of the Star of Karageorge. Three, I am reminded by Antidiskriminator, were produced in an earlier discussion, the remainder are listed directly above. The first three were provided here [1] and were:

  1. Tragom plave lisice, Đorđe Ličina, Centar za informacije i publicitet, 1977 - p 253 link which is not in English and no translation has been produced. It was not used in the article to source the information about the Star for that reason, and also because the next source that was provided was in English and could be verified online.
  2. The heretic: the life and times of Josip Broz-Tito, Fitzroy Maclean. This was the source used to cite the Star in the article because it was in English and verifiable online. This source also supports the Iron Cross award.
  3. Oslobodilački ili građanski rat u Jugoslaviji 1941-1945 - Miloš Minić, Agencija "Mir", 1993 p.149. Antidiskriminator translated this source, insofar as it supported the award of the Star. Unfortunately he must have overlooked translating the last few words of the excerpt he provided in Cyrillic, which my Google Translate tells me actually also supports the award of the Iron Cross.

Up until today, we supposedly had three sources for the Star, I say supposedly because one of them hasn't been translated, and two of those also supported the Iron Cross award. I thank Antidiskriminator for adding to the sources that support the Iron Cross award, which I will now add to the article on the basis that he has produced it as a source for the Star of Karageorge, so it clearly must be reliable in his view. Then we have the additional sources Antidiskriminator has produced, all in Serbo-Croat. I am quite happy for Antidiskriminator to restore the mention of the Star of Karageorge in the article, including the information he believes is relevant, which is an altogether appropriate course of action given six of the seven sources are all in Serbo-Croat. I'm sure proper context in the source language is important here, and unfortunately I can't provide that context due to my lack of the necessary language skills. This will also give Antidiskriminator the opportunity to use these sources to place the award in its chronological context as he understands it to be from the Serbo-Croat language sources, again something I cannot do. It is clear that the most appropriate editor to make these edits is Antidiskriminator, and I ask him to do so. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No. I presented seven sources for Karadjordje's star to explain that you were wrong when you said "the only source for this award [Karadjordje's star] is a single mention in Maclean's book" (diff). They are certainly not exceptional sources necessary to support Iron Cross award. Don't expect me to repair your disruptions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
When I stated that, we actually had only two sources, one of which was Deakin. The third wasn't translated. Now we have seven! One still needs to be translated, but great. Over to you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here is translated quote from work of Ličina: Pavle Đurišić.... was awarded with two 'high military orders': Karadjordje's star and German Iron Cross.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
So, Ličina too. Fantastic. At this rate we'll have ten sources for the Iron Cross by lunchtime. What about the other sources you've located for the Star of Karageorge? Do any more of them mention the Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I already clearly explained (diff) why I presented those seven sources (to explain that you were wrong when you said "the only source for this award [Karadjordje's star] is a single mention in Maclean's book" (diff) not because I believe they are exceptional sources necessary to support Iron Cross award. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Exceptional enough for the Star, but not exceptional enough for the Cross? You can't have it both ways. This diff which Anti has so kindly brought to our attention demonstrates his intentional deception and POV pushing. His selective translation of sources in a manner that would only be beneficial to his POV is astounding (omitting a translation of Ličina entirely and cutting Minić off mid sentence). He knew that the very sources which he used to support his assertions also support the Cross assertion and despite this he's continued to demand more and more sources for the Cross after attacking Cohen as unreliable. I should note that, Radoje Pajovic (p. 78), the historian of the University of Podgorica that's used early in the article also apparently states he received the cross. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
A number of very good points, PRODUCER. I'll be as clear as I can about this, Antidiskriminator. The fact that Pavle Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross is not of itself an exceptional claim by the standards of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Every time another source appears for it makes it even less so. From a WP:V perspective, there are several WP:REDFLAGs we need to check the claim against, as follows.
  • the claim is neither surprising nor an important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources. We now have Cohen, Deakin, Funke & Rhotert, Minić and Ličina, we have Cohen citing Kostić, Parežanin and Stefanović, and a primary source from US Archives to back it all up.
  • the claim is not challenged, and even if it was it is not supported purely by primary or self-published sources of those that have an apparent conflict of interest
  • the sources don't seem out of character or against an interest the source had previously defended
  • the claim is not contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

On the contrary. Like I already explained (in this diff) I didn't object removal of Star assertion. What I object is removal of Star assertion without removal of Cross assertion. Based on lack of exceptional sources only both can be removed or none.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Given the additional sources and translations Antidiskriminator has provided, I certainly am tending towards acceptance of Director's point about the Star having been handed out fairly generously during the war, so perhaps it isn't such an exceptional claim after all. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You added two new sources for Iron Cross assertion:
  1. Miloš Minić - a Serbian communist politician and the prosecutor on the Trial of Draža Mihailović.
  2. Đorđe Ličina - a journalist
None of them is exceptional source.
@Peacemaker67: It is you who emphasized that Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic is of exceptional nature, more exceptional than Karadjordje's star, because Pavle Djurisic is the only Chetnik commander who recieved it (diff). I agree with you.
It is incorrect that this claim is not challenged. You of course know that I presented many sources which dispute it. One of them is Kosta Nikolić whose CV published at website of the Institute for Contemporary History says that he is professional historian who graduated in 1988 and received his is PhD in 1999 on thesis "The Chetnik movement 1941-1944". He is also specialized in history of communism in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and history of Serbs and Serb society during WWII and his selected biography includes works like "The causes of civil war in Serbia 1941" and "German war propaganda in Serbia 1941–1944".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not say it was not challenged, even though you appear to have stopped providing evidence that your "challenging" sources are reliable in order to try this particular tack. You are misrepresenting WP:REDFLAG. The relevant bullet point reads "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". It is not about whether it is challenged, is is about challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

    • Another PhD historian who challenged the Iron Cross award is Bojan B. Dimitrijevic, also with Institute for Contemporary History whose CV says that he is also specialized in this topic, his master thesis was "Royalist Resistance in Northwest Serbia 1941–1945," and he is also specialized in History of Chetnik movement, Yugoslav Peoples Army. His bibliography also includes many works about Chetniks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "you appear to have stopped", "your "challenging" sources", "to try this particular tack", "You are misrepresenting WP:REDFLAG"
  • Almost every your comment is full of comments about me. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue.
  • Thank you for pointing to WP:REDFLAG which should be indeed respected with exceptional Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic which is surprising (the only Chetnik commander who received it) or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources based on challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
An interesting bit from Anti's supposedly reliable historians (that support the rehabilitation of Mihailovic) from his yellow press source [2]. "Historians that oppose the rehabilitation of Mihailovic stated that "in Sandzak Chetniks killed 30,000 to 35,000 peaceful Muslim people." An action that was led by Montenegrin Chetnik commander Pavle Djurisic. - It's nonsense, exaggerated figures, says Nikolic - The original report submitted by Pavle Djurisic to Draza Mihailovic exists. It provides the details that he led the army and clashed with Muslims. On this occasion, according to the report, the killed were 400 civilians and 1,000 people with weapons." In reality the reverse is true, 400 Muslim fighters were killed and 1,000 Muslim civilians were killed. Chetnik apologism at its worst. As a PhD makes any source impenetrable apparently, let's cite Seselj for the Yugoslav wars while we are at it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
@PRODUCER: I think that Nikolić and Dimitrijević are obviously far more reliable than Cohen, Miloš Minić or any other source used to support exceptional Iron Cross awarded to Djurisic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
They support your POV. It comes as no surprise that you continue to push these same sources even when the blatant falsification and understatement of Muslim civilian deaths are revealed and their political endorsement of the rehabilitation of Mihailovic is apparent. To be clear you're the one that brought Minić and translated him deceptively, now when it's revealed that it also supports a view you reject it's unreliable? I'm not at all interested in your bargaining of historical facts nor your pile of delusional and negationist yellow press propaganda. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator. The observations I have made relate to your endlessly tendentious comments, they are not attacks on your character. I pointed to REDFLAG as you clearly had not read it. It is apparent from your response that you do not understand it. I have nothing else to add. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
None of my comments was tendentious. On the contrary. My comments were constructive, based on presented sources and used as a tool to improve the articles' quality. You even thanked two times on this talk page, last time in this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That is called irony. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I gave clear reasons for my position (I object the removal of Star assertion without removal of Cross assertion. Based on lack of exceptional sources only both can be removed or none.) and I don't really have much to add to that now. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sakes, he got both awards, neither are really "exceptional claims", moving on.. -- Director (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the mention of the Star in the Aftermath section and infobox as it was before. My apologies to all, I believe I may have over-reacted. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Iron cross controversy

Latest comment: 12 years ago48 comments5 people in discussion

I think that this article does not present real controversies about Pavle Đurišić like Iron cross controversy. There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. Those claims say that it is not only forgery, but also absurd taking in consideration that Germans actually imprisoned Đurišić in 1943 and held him in captivity until he escaped.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There are claims." Bring reliable sources to the table not just some hearsay. Also Wikipedia is absolutely disinterested in your original research. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you know it is "my original research"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "my original research"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Please be trolling... -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually AntiD, it is original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. You have brought the claim here, so you need to back it up with a WP:RS. I am aware of the 'claim' but have never seen a WP:RS that supports it. Without a WP:RS, there is no controversy and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No. It would be original research only if no reliable, published sources exist to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And your comment was not constructive, because you were raising an issue without a WP:RS for it. I could go to any article and make a comment on a conspiracy theory about that subject and it would not be constructive. You have no source, you raised it, so your comment is WP:OR until you do, and with respect, I will be ignoring it until a source is provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You did not give me any time to present sources before you labeled my comment as original research. That was not polite nor constructive. Here are some sources which support information that there are claims that he actually did not receive Iron Cross:

Books:

Press

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, I don't read the lingo. When I see a translation into English by a disinterested sr-5 en Wikipedian translator and we can assess the reliability of the sources, or PRODUCER can read it and forms a view about the reliability of the sources, then we can discuss. Until then it's just a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You should probably provide English translations and context for the quotations if you want to be taken seriously by non Serbo-Croatian speakers. You are on English Wikipedia after all. Unsurprisingly every source is a non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly, and unreliable Serbian work. How you can criticize Cohen and then bring a government gazette, a book by a collaborator, a bunch of yellow press and tabloid articles, and even a website dedicated solely to Chetnik apologism is beyond me. The first "book" is actually an official gazette of the FRY government which you were told before. The second is a biography on Milan Nedic written by Stanislav Krakov who was the head of propaganda for ZBOR and Nedic's "relative and close coworker." As for the rest, Serbian yellow press and tabloids that are not worth the paper their printed on. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I take it 'yellow press' is like 'tabloid journalism' here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've dealt with Stanislav Krakov as source before and I think that it's much worse than that. Another user had been making extensive use of Stanislav Krakov on Gligor Sokolovic and Antidiskriminator was insisting that he's RS even when I pointed out that he was editor-in-chief of the Belgrade-based collaborationist newspaper Obnova. However, arguments shouldn't have been needed at all as the details and "facts" from his works were so disturbing that I had to ask for admin intervention in order to remove such info. Btw PRODUCER since you're knowledgeable regarding Yugoslav/Croatian/Serbian sources would you evaluate Smilja Avramov as a source? --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Krakov was not removed as source from Gligor Sokolović. On the contrary, he is used more than 100 times as reference in that article.
@ZjarriRrethues, your invitation is another example of Wikipedia:Canvassing connected with Vulnetari article. First you invited Peacemaker67 and now PRODUCER. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Asking someone to find sources about a subject is not that and asking someone to evaluate sources is not that either. However, your labeling of [3] Peacemaker's comment and tendetious edits like this one (based again on Smilja Avramov, Nenadovic etc.) isn't prudent.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree because I believe that at least some of the presented sources are enough reliable to dispute Iron Cross award.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Which ones are 'reliable enough' in your view? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There are several sources I presented which are written by historians. If there is a group of historians who dispute assertion of non-historian then I that assertion is certainly disputed and WP:NPOV policy should be respected. If de.wikipedia is correct Hajo Funke is not historian. I don't know about Alexander Rhotert but takig in consideration his political engagement and this interview I am not sure the source you used to additionally support Cohen's assertion is more reliable than many of the sources I presented here, especially because Rhotert and Funke actually used Cohen as source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Choose one and we can discuss. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, this [4] is a list of Funke's academic research, fellowships and authorships when he gave evidence during a case regarding David Irving. If you think a book by Funke doesn't qualify as a WP:RS go ahead and take it to RSN. In the meantime I take the view that a professor of political science at the Free University of Berlin with his specialisations is highly appropriate as a source for this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your divisions aren't useful as RS criteria Antid. as we don't judge a work's reliability based on strict field distinctions especially when the field itself is broadly and loosely defined. In fact, more often than not, awarded historical works are written by linguists, archaeologists, political scientists, anthropologists and journalists.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 06:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::::I will prepare more detailed explanation about sources I presented, although you wrote: "No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis." This is not the first time you estimate reliability depending on the POV supported by source. Even if it is the same source (like Glas Javnosti case explained in section Berane II) You did not discuss Rhotert and Funke before inserting them into article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I made that comment after 13 days of nothing on this thread. Which was fair enough in my view. How long am I supposed to wait? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I replied to this comment you wrote within last hour. During last 13 days I did not submit any new source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, you quoted me as saying "No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis.". When I made that comment, this thread had been silent for 13 days. Or are you even disputing the passing of time? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Please state what source or sources you are relying on for your contention that there is some controversy about Djurisic's Iron Cross. PRODUCER has indicated that the first book you have listed is an official gazette of the FRY, and the second book is written by a former ZBOR propagandist. I believe neither would be acceptable as a WP:RS, and note that PRODUCER agrees in respect of the first book, and that both PRODUCER and ZjarriRrethues agree with respect to the second. So I assume that you are relying on one or more of the Serbian language press articles you have listed? Which one(s)? And exactly what do they say in English? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize because I forgot to translate the quotes from the presented sources:

Books:

Press

Maybe three sources written by historians could be used to support the proposed assertion: There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged.?
Publishing house Službeni list SRJ is different from the official gazzete of FR Yugoslavia --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
So, firstly, are you disputing PRODUCER's statement that "Službeni list Savezne Republike Jugoslavije" was the official gazette of the FR Yugoslavia published between 1992-2003, or you are saying that "Službeni list Savezne Republike Jugoslavije" that was also the publisher of the gazette was also the publisher of this book? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
and seriously, do you dispute that Stanislav Krakov was the nephew of Milan Nedic, the editor of a collaborationist newspaper during the war and a ZBOR propagandist? Let's just get this clear. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "PRODUCER has indicated that the first book you have listed is an official gazette of the FRY" (diff) I explained that it is incorrect. The first book I have listed is not an official gazette of FRY. It is only published by publishing house which had the same name and was also the publisher of the gazette.
  • Krakov was not historian and I did not propose to use him as source nor I dispute anything you wrote about Stanislav Krakov. (Krakov case is maybe similar with Djilas case and Djurisic's role in the struggle for Berane. Let me remind you what you wrote about using Djilas as source because he said that Djurisic distinguished himself during the worst fighting for Berane: "if he says it, then he certainly must have done that" (diff). Using the same logic it might be said: If Krakov, "who was the nephew of Milan Nedic, the editor of a collaborationist newspaper during the war and a ZBOR propagandist" says that Iron Cross award was forged, then it certainly must have been forged.)
  • My position: There is no scientific consensus about Iron Cross award. I presented many sources for the assertion I proposed to be added to the article "There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged.". I proposed to use statements of three historians as source to support this assertion.
  • Current situation: This article presents information about Iron Cross award like there is scientific consensus about it. (Based on Cohen important diff)).
  • Will you please be so kind to clarify your arguments for your refusal to accept my proposal to clarify there is no scientific consensus about Iron Cross award by adding one sentence: "There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged."?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Your argument re: Djilas and Krakov is completely back to front. If Djilas (Djurisic's enemy) says something good about Djurisic, it is more likely to be true than not because he was his enemy. In the case of Krakov, if Krakov (the nephew of Djurisic's ally Nedic) says something nice about Djurisic (that he didn't really get the Iron Cross), that is nothing like the Djilas issue, it is exactly what you would expect Krakov to say, surely...
What I want to get to is the reliability of the sources you are suggesting are indicating there is a controversy. You'll need to cite something reliable for that proposed edit, so what source(s) are the ones you are proposing to use? I say Krakov is unreliable for this information due to clear and strong bias, but you say you are not going to use him as a source. So why raise him in the first place? Moving on, so you are saying the other book was published by the "government printer" in effect? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You raised Krakov, not me, when you asked me about Krakov (diff) although I clearly stated (two times, diff and diff) what sources (three sources written by historians, which don't include Krakov) should be used for the assertion I proposed. I mentioned Krakov again in my last comment just to reply to your question (diff) emphasizing that "I did not propose to use him as source". Although I still think Krakov case is very similar to your analogy in Djilas case (if Krakov (Djurisic's ally and German collaborator) says something he consider bad about Djurisic (that he actually was not awarded with Iron Cross), it is more likely to be true than not because he was Djurisic's ally and German collaborator) I propose not to discuss Krakov anymore.
  • Taking in consideration my above explanation about my position and current situation (Based on Cohen (important diff)) please be so kind to answer my question (diff): Will you please be so kind to clarify your arguments for your refusal to accept my proposal to clarify there is no scientific consensus about Iron Cross award by adding one sentence: "There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged."? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
What sources are you relying on then? I thought you put up two books and some news articles? If you are not relying on one of the books you put up it does beg the question. It's a bit difficult to formulate a response when you won't answer the question. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I stated (three times diff, diff and diff) that I propose to use three sources which present opinion of historians (Kovačević, Dimitrijević and Novaković, each of them is marked as such in the list I presented above).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
If I may interject, you said "maybe three historians". Be specific, do not expect editors guess at which sources you are referring to. Again as was stated previously these are unreliable sources. Kovačević's work is published by the "Official Gazette of FRY", regardless of how you wish to twist this, it's a government publication. The other two are opinions expressed in yellow journals. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I was specific and named all three of them. Otherwise you would not be able to refer to them as "a government publication. The other two are opinions expressed in yellow journals." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to be pedantic, you did not state which three sources you were relying on (of the seven sources you listed) until now. However, now that we know you are asserting that Kovačević, Dimitrijević and Novaković support your contention, we can now discuss the sources.Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I stated three times that I propose to use three sources which present opinion of historians. Although all three (and only three out of seven presented) sources written by historians were marked as such in the presented list, I specified those three sources (diff) before PRODUCER complained that I was not specific (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kovačević first. Let's have a look at it against WP:RS. Has the book been vetted by the scholarly community/reviewed in a scholarly journal (particularly one outside the FRY)? What other information is available about the book's reliability? What is Kovačević's training, where has he/she taught, what other books has he/she written and how were they reviewed? What about the publisher? What is your response to PRODUCER's assertion that the book by Kovačević was published by the government of FRY, and what is your view about the reliability of the government of the FRY as a publisher, what reputation do they have for fact checking/scholarly standards of the books they publish? I will state up-front that Kovačević's statement that Djurisic was burned alive by the Ustase is an extraordinary claim I have never seen before, and does tend to undermine Kovačević's credibility from the outset. The idea that "he couldn't have been awarded the Iron Cross because the Ustase wouldn't have killed him if he had" is also an illogical construction given the range of issues that were involved in his capture and death at the hands of the Ustase and Sekula Drljević (ie revenge for earlier massacres, Montenegrin separatism vs unification with Serbia etc). Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment and all 12 (twelve) questions you asked me about the first of three sources I proposed to be used to support the assertion "There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged." I need some time to reply to your comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Without any particular intention to provide an actual opinion :) I should note that I'm not from Serbia but I think I've heard of Bojan Dimitrijević once when I saw him interviewed on the Croatian Radiotelevision, so he seems to have some general notability, and probably credibility. Having said that, given that the claim of Iron Cross is cited to numerous published works, it stands to reason that we want to cite an actual paper by Dimitrijević where he states this and elaborates on it, rather than a newspaper article in which he says only two sentences about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Say where you read it and Citation overkill

  • I noticed that you cited 8 (eight) sources to support the Iron Cross assertion. There is an interesting essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This essay explains that "One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring" and emphasizes that "A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should be avoided as clutter." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, a most illuminating essay. Although I'm not sure how edit-warring is relevant. There has been no edit-warring on this issue because edit-warring actually requires at least two editors that edit in article space. I also "noticed" something. What I "noticed" was that you have been banging on about the supposedly "controversial" Iron Cross for months without providing anything that looks remotely like a WP:RS. If it actually is "citation overkill" (which is not a WP policy, but an essay), it might be able to be refactored if you dropped the stick. But seeing as the horse continues to be thrashed, they stay for now. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Death place

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments3 people in discussion
  • The article presents Lijevče polje as Djurisic's death place.
  • There are many claims that Djurisic was killed in Jasenovac (link, link, link...). I apologize if all those claims are wrong but maybe it would be good to check if it is possible that article is factually incorrect regarding Djurisic's unreferenced death place?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The first two are in Serbo-Croat. I can't read them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
However, if someone has access to it, according to the footnote on Tomasevich Vol 1 p 449, Pajovic's Political Action of Sekula Drljevic pp 79-89 may have more information about the fate of those captured, including Djurisic. Tomasevich does say that there are several versions of what happened after Djurisic's capture. I imagine he made that observation because there are conflicting stories. Not sure if we are going to be able to come up with a definitive answer if Tomasevich wasn't able to, but have noted that Tomasevich says that there are several versions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The death date and place is based on Pavlowtich (p. 256): "On 12 April, Djurisic's Montenegrin force was destroyed in battle by much stronger ustashas at Lijevca Polje, north of Banjaluka by the river Sava." Looking into Pajovic's other work (p. 100) it says "Pavle Durišić, Zaharije Ostojić, Petar Baćović, Dragiša Vasić, a number of National Committee of Montenegro members and the other officers who found their way into Djurisic's group after Lijevče polje - altogether about 150 people - were sent to Jasenovac where they were killed by the Ustase. According to the Chetnik version, Djurisic and a number of his close associates were burned alive. The same view is present in Hermann Neubacher's Sonderauftrag Südost 1940—1945 (Bericht eines fliegenden Diplomaten, Seeheim, 1966)." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Pavlowitch, page 256, does not support Lijevče polje death place assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
And it is no longer in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is good that this article is not factually inaccurate anymore regarding Djurisic's death date, death place and birth date. If PRODUCER has some source which supports his Lijevče polje version I invite him to present it.
  • There are sources which support Jasenovac as his death place. I already presented some of them:
    1. Nikolić, Kosta (2009), Italijanska vojska i četnici u drugom svetskom ratu u Jugoslaviji, 1941-1943 [Italian army and Chetniks in WWII in Yugoslavia, 1941-1943] (in Serbian), Belgrade: Institut za savremenu istoriju, p. 176, ISBN 9788674031308, OCLC 495409281, Pavle Đurišić (Podgorica, 9 Jul 1907 - Jasenovac 1945) {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
    2. Basta, Milan (1986) [1976], Rat je završen 7 dana kasnije [War was ended 7 days later], Privredni Pregled, p. 450, OCLC 462159997, Nisam imao pojma da je Sekula na prevaru namamio Djurisica kada se ovaj odvojio od Draze Mihailovica u Bosni i da ga je predao ustašama u Bosanskoj Gradiški i da je u Jasenovcu Đurišić ubijen s većim brojem četničkih oficira i funkcionera [I did not know that Sekula set double crossed Djurisic after his departure from Draza Mihailovic in Bosnia and that he was handed to ustase in Bosanska Gradiska and that in Jasenovac Djurisic was killed together with larger number of Chetnik officers and officials] {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    3. The South slav journal, London: The Dositey Obradovich circle, 1985, p. 100, OCLC 473871939, ... voivoda Pavle Djurisic and a number of his officers were subsequently taken to the Jasenovac camp and killed. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editorn=, |editorn-first=, |editorn-link=, |author-separator=, |coauthors=, and |editorn-last= (help); Unknown parameter |firstn= ignored (help)
  • Taking in consideration above mentioned explanation that Radoje Pajović (already used in this article) also supports Jasenovac version I don't think there is any dispute about Jasenovac being Djurisic's death place so I propose to add Jasenovac as his death place.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is as black and white as that. Your sources (other than Pajovic, which is accepted as a WP:RS) are not reliable in my view (and clearly in PRODUCER's as well) and we have explained why. This is especially important for a matter such as this where Jasenovac is involved. At least two highly reliable sources state that what happened after his capture is unclear or a mystery. Pavlowitch says "mystery surrounds the liquidation of Djurisic" and Tomasevich essentially says that there are different versions of what happened to him. Jasenovac is obviously one version, with one reliable source for it. I think it is reasonable, in the interests of balance, for the Jasenovac story (sourced from Pajovic only) to be incorporated in the "Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction" section, to contrast with the observations of Pavlowitch and Tomasevich. The differences between Pavlowitch and Pajovic regarding the number of people captured and killed (30 vs 150) should also be included as that shows a significant difference between sources. However, as Pajovic states the burning part of the story was the "Chetnik version", that should not be included. Place of death in the infobox should remain unknown. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"Mystery surrounds the liquidation of Djurisic", wheather he was burned alive or not. There is no mystery about Jasenovac being death place of Djurisic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
That is an absolutely unmitigated POV misinterpretation of what Pavlowitch says. You want it to mean that, but guess what? It doesn't say that, and it would be WP:OR to impute that meaning to it. It is self-evident from Pavlowitch and Tomasevich that they consider the place and circumstances of his liquidation/death are "a mystery" or at the very least that there are several stories about it, and none have been endorsed by either source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I dont agree with you. I presented sources for my position and I really don't think there was a reason for another unnecessarily harsh comment and unfounded accusations. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources about Djurisic being murdered in Jasenovac. They include sources which are already used in this article:
  1. Miloš Minić says link: "После краћег времена Ђуришића, Лалатовића, Балетића, Баћовића, Остојића, Драгишу Васића и неколико чланова националног четничког комитета за Црну Гору, Санџак и Херцеговину и друге официре из те групе, све заједно њих око сто педесет, отерали су у логор у Јасеновац, где су поубијани 1. маја 1945.године." [After short time Djurisic, Lalatovic, Baletic, Bacovic, Osstojic, Dragisa Vasic and several members of national chetnik committee for Montenegro, Sanjak and Herzegovina together with other officers from that group, all together abouut 150, they forced to go to Jasenovac where they were killed on 1. May 1945.]
  2. Đorđe Ličina says link: "PAVLE ĐURIŠIĆ, major jugoslavenske kraljevske vojske. Četnički komandant ... crnogorski separatist Sekula Drljević na prijevaru ga je predao ustašama, koje su ga, zajedno s njegovim »štabom«, likvidirale u Jasenovcu." [Pavle Djurisic, mayor of Yugoslav Royal Army. Chetnik commander.... Montenegrin separatist Sekula Drljevic doublecrossed him and delivered him to ustaše, who killed him in Jasenovac, together with his "headquater".]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Makes no difference. We have two undisputed scholarly sources that say its a mystery or that there are various versions. That's means there is no definitive version, and it would be wrong to say it was definitely at Jasenovac. Also, 1 May looks a little dubious. The camp revolt was on 22 April and the Ustase burned the place down shortly thereafter. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This link is interesting though, it is from the list of persons killed at Jasenovac on the Jasenovac Memorial Site. [5]. It gives the source as LEKSIKON-YU-MITOLOGIJE; MIL-2=1018; MB-RAT=476. Anyone know what that means? The site also says the Ustase withdrew on 23 April and the Partisans arrived on 1 May. I'm not sure about this site as a source, but it certainly adds to the discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Antun Miletić (code MIL-2 p. 1018) appears to be one source of this information on Djurisic. The other, MB-RAT, appears to be an transposition error and should read BM-RAT (Milan Basta p. 476). Incidentally, searched the database for Ostojic and Bacovic and they are both on it too, although the sources vary. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with you about sources and their interpretation. I still believe Tomasevich and Pawlovitch were uncertain about claims that Djurisic was burned/boiled alive in Jasenovac, which was emphasized by Chetniks and Neubacher. The link you provided supports Jasenovac death place assertion because it contains list of individual victims of Jasenovac. I searched this list with "Đurišić" last name criteria and search result presented Pavle Đurišić as one of the people murdered in Jasenovac. This site says (link): "The list of camp victims to which you refer (https://cp 13.heritageweb desing.com/lituchy/victimlist.php) is the List of Victims of the Second World War in Yugoslavia. It contains 597,323 names, regardless of the place of death or executioner, and was compiled in 1964 by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Federal Institute of Statistics. It was placed on the internet by the Jasenovac Research Institute in Brooklyn, New York, therefore all comments and questions should be addressed to them." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Firstly, neither Tomasevich nor Pavlowitch say they are talking about the method by which Djurisic was put to death. Neither of them even mention Jasenovac. Your belief is based on straight-out WP:OR. Secondly, the JUSP website clearly states that the Note code on the individual entry relates to the source of the data for that individual entry. The data on Djurisic comes from Basta and Miletic. The JUSP website list is a tertiary source, Basta and Miletic are the secondary sources from which the data is drawn. Finally, the FAQ response you have quoted is completely out-of-context and relates to the list on another site which the person posing the question says is inaccurate. Please stop wasting my time with this stuff. I'm happy to discuss actual sources and their reliability, but every time I bring them up you skirt the question and come up with some other nonsense. It is incredibly frustrating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 October 2012

  • I can only repeat that I don't agree with you about sources and their interpretation.
  • The point of the link I presented was that information about Djurisic being murdered in Jasenovac was taken from the list compiled in 1964 by official statistics institute. You can also use this link to verify if I am right. JUSP did not accept this list without critical comparisons of data for each individual with hundreds of other sources (like Basta and Miletic). As far as I understand it, the data is not drawn from Basta and Miletic but from 1964 list, while Basta and Miletic were among hundreds of sources used for its verification. I of course apologize if I am wrong, which is still no reason for such harsh comment. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Death date

Resolved

@PRODUCER: I checked Pavlowitch, page 256, but could not verify that he supports death date assertion. Will you please present a quote which support the assertion about his death date?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no obligation to spoon feed sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You've nitpicked every possible thing in the article you could since August sometimes without an iota of evidence that would support the contrary and sometimes with a bunch of unreliable publications that were presented deceptively. The patience and good faith wears off. Why you accept he was killed at Lijevče polje, but not the date is beyond me. Unless you have another source that's as reliable that gives another date this is the best we have. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I carefully reviewed this article after public invitation and discovered many of its numerous flaws. Most of them are resolved thanks to me (including wrong Lijevce polje death place assertion). I don't expect your or anybodies' gratitude but I really believe there is/was no need for your unnecessarily harsh comments addressed to me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What Pavlowitch says is that "mystery surrounds the liquidation of Djurisic", and then he says that on 12 April his force was defeated, he "and a nucleus of about thirty were captured and killed by the ustashas". What we can take from that is that Pavlowitch doesn't state exactly which day he died, but it must have been on 12 April or soon thereafter, and would not have been before that date. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ultimately, both Tomasevich and Pavlowitch state that there is mystery about his death, or at the very least confusing stories. It is also worthy of note that neither of them saw fit to repeat the Jasenovac story, if they were aware of it, and that Pavlowitch says there were about 30 captured and killed, yet Pajovic says 150. That's a pretty big discrepancy. Given that we have two highly reliable university professors, reliably published, saying it is a mystery, I think it is a mystery. Am I right in saying that the links you provided are to Nikolic, Milan Basta, and the South Slav Journal? I think I'll stick with Pavlowitch and Tomasevich thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Will you please be so kind to present quotes from works of Pavlowitch's and/or Tomasevich's which support 12 April death date assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I haven't made the assertion, and to my knowledge neither states what his date of death was. Based on Tomasevich and Pavlowitch it would be more correct to state in the article that his date of death was 12 April 1945 or soon after but is not definitely known. In lieu of that approach, can you suggest a reliable source that provides a definite date of death? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Why did you write "I think I'll stick with Pavlowitch and Tomasevich thanks." if "neither states what his date of death was"?
  • Date of destruction of Djurisic's forces is not the same as death date of Djurisic. It is wrong to present 12 April as Djurisic's death date without reliable sources which support it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, they don't give his date of death because they say what transpired after his capture is a mystery/there are multiple stories about it. We know his forces were destroyed, captured etc on 12 April because we have a source for that. It is as good as we have. What do you suggest we use instead? "Unknown"?
In answer to your second question, if those two authors have nothing better than the date his forces were destroyed, and there is no other reliable source about the date of his death, then some variation on "12 April 1945 or soon after" is as good as we have. Again, if you have a reliable source for his date of death, or a suggestion as to how the mystery can be represented in the infobox, then please enlighten us. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
If neither Pavlowitch or Tomasevich stated exact death date it is wrong to attribute 12 April death date assertion to them. If there are no sources which support exact death date the only solution is just to state April or end of April (after Battle of Lijevče polje and before destruction of Jasenovac). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
At present, in the article itself, his date of death is not sourced and only appears in the lead and info box. However, I agree that we need to amend the text and info box to make it clear his date of death is unknown. Jasenovac is another issue. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pavle_Đurišić/Archive_4&oldid=1137075097"