Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What happened with remaining Chetnik forces in Montenegro after Đurišić was captured

The text of the article does not explain what happened with remaining Chetnik forces in Montenegro after Đurišić was captured. It says that Germans "entered Kolašin and seized Đurišić by deceiving the Italian troops who were guarding his headquarters. Đurišić and the Chetniks did not resist their capture, and there were no casualties. The Italians vigorously protested Đurišić's capture but were overruled by the Germans".

Pajović (work of 1977, pages 355-360) explains that Italians in several steps disarmed Chetniks (first illegal then legal), captured and interned to prison in Bari (Italy) big number of Chetnik commanders in Montenegro. Those Chetniks are majority of post-war Montenegrin Chetnik emigrants. Without those informations the readers could be mislead about what happened with remaining Chetnik forces in Montenegro after Đurišić was captured, so I propose to add a short explanation to the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pajović notes only a small number of Chetnik local leaders interned to Bar (Montenegro), and Bari and Perugia (Italy). He lists twelve by name, and states "and many others", and it does not mean significant percent at all. In fact, Pejović writes of those who left in Montenegro, many of which still in contact with Italians. And, the most important: it has nothing to do with Đurišić.--Gorran (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect.

1. "Pajović notes only a small number" I knew that you or Peacemaker67 will complain because of the term "big number". That is why I strictly followed the source. Here is what Pajovic actually says: Италијани су приступили интернирању већег броја четничких вођа, официра и других припадника. The translation: "Italians interned a big number of Chetnik leaders, commanders and other members." This article already has a problem with source misinterpretation by its main contributor. It does not need additional source misinterpretation issues.
2. "What does it have with Đurišić? " The people interned by the Italians were directly connected with Đurišić. They were interned because they were Montenegrin Chetniks. They belonged to Đurišćs forces and on page 361 Pajović explains that officers from the staff of Đurišićs LSCD were also interned (Послије интернирања штаба Лимско-санџачких четничких одреда). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Послије интернирања штаба Лимско-санџачких четничких одреда" (after the internment of the headquarters of Lim-Sandžak Četnik Detachment) - refers to the internment from May 1943, done by Germans. It is not attributed to Italians.--Gorran (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Big number of Montenegrin Chetniks were interned by the Italians and some by Germans. All of them were subordinated to Djurisic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Says who?--Gorran (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Veći broj" is an idiom. Actually, "veliki broj" (large number) is often used for a greater number than "veći broj". "Veći broj" suggests 50, or hundred, or something like that. In most cases, it is not used for "substantial number".--Gorran (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether you translate it as big number or large number it does not change the point here. It is necessary to explain that Italians changed their policy toward all Chetniks in Montenegro (including Djurisic's) and disarmed, captured and interned to Italian prison a "large number" of them. Otherwise the readers could be mislead about the Italian relations with Chetniks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that Italians have changed their policy towards Četniks. It is also true that Četniks changed their policy towards Italians. The July instruction (Perhinek) insisted that Četnik leaders should cease to maintain open relations with the Italians, and to proceed with the relations covertly instead. But, this all has not much to do with Đurišić. He was in German captivity, with no official or factual position in the Četnik organization, and he did not have his private Četniks.--Gorran (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirmation of information I presented. Your comment "he did not have his private Četniks" is not constructive. No doubt that you know that I did not refer to Djurisic's Chetniks as his private Chetniks, but as Chetniks that were under his command before. It is very important to explain what happened to the remaining forces in Montenegro, not only because they were established and commanded by him before, but also because it is necessary to place the subject of this article in necessary context, which is request of GA and FA criteria. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I haven't confirmed anything. Pajović extensively described new Italian policy, and it was not any kind of full-scale attack on Četniks - more a kind of re-organization. Some units were disbanded, some re-organized. They simply asked back their weapons previously given to Četniks, and Četniks generally obeyed. There were no major incidents. Some (significant number) of Četnik leaders were interned, some were included in the new organization. It would be highly misleading to display this situation as some intense hostilities.--Gorran (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I particularly haven't confirmed that "headquarters of LSČO" was, or that large numbers of Đurišić's men were interned in Italy.--Gorran (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And I could say that I particularly haven't stated that "headquarters of LSČO" was interned in Italy and we could go on like that forever. I think I presented clear valid arguments for my position, grounded in sources and wikipedia policies, and I don't have anything to add to it now. You are, of course, free to disagree with me but you can not expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing here with you as long as you are dissatisfied with my position. All the best! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Zaostro

Resolved

Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator did not edit the article to add this information, yet has marked it as "resolved" despite none of the information from Đurović having been added to the article

The text of the article does not mention Zaostro, a village in which Đurišić established the headquarter (Chetnik code name "Gorski Štab 15") of his forces (Pajović, page 32) and in which it was planned to erect a monument in his honor (Glas Javnosti, already used in the article). I propose to add Zaostro to the text of the article together with above mentioned details.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I found a source which presents more details about Zaostro. It says that the headquarter was in the school in Zaostro and that Yugoslav flag was waved on its building, to attract local population:

• Đurović, Milinko (1964). Ustanak naroda Jugolavije, 1941: zbornik. Pišu učesnici. Vojno delo. p. 453. Nastanio se u selu Zaostro i na školi, u kojoj je bio štab, razvio bivšu jugoslo vensku zastavu, kao mamac za narod, koji nije...[He stayed in Zaostro and in its school, where his headquarter was, put former Yugoslav flag, as a bait for the people,....]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 No doubt you know that your "capnotes" you repeatedly add to talkpages to create a false narrative about my disruptive conduct are blatant violation of wp:talk behavioral guideline. Please be so kind to remove all of them both in this talkpage and in all other talkpages you added them. With your edit you added information about Zaostro and its codename. Your "capnote" statement that none of the information from Đurović having been added to the article is .... well you know what it is. Please be so kind to stop with your repeated disruptive actions. This is not comment about the content but since Peacemaker67 forbid me to write comments on his talkpage I have to write this kind of comments here. All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Đurišić's collaboration with Slovenian Chetnik Perhinek

The article does not mention Rudolf Perhinek and Đurišić's collaboration with this Slovenian Chetnik who was very important for him. They both served Yugoslav Royal Army in Berane before the war, they both participated in the Yugoslav invasion of Albania, they both participated in Uprising in Montenegro and capture of Berane from Italians, they both were involved in establishing connection with Mihailovic, they both are involved in "instructions" issue (it is very important to explain how).... Perhinek was Mihailovic's special envoy at Djurisic's staff with very big responsibilities and continuous connection with Mihailovic. Both Perhinek and Djurisic participated on the various Chetnik conferences, both of them presided the conference in Sahovici, together with Popovic, they together cooperated with Albanian nationalists, .... I think that Perhinek deserves to be mentioned in this article taking in consideration his importance for Djurisic and especially "instructions" case.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Allegiance

There should be also allegiance to Sekula Drljević and NDH at the end of his life in the template. --Mladifilozof (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that he never actually joined Drljević, and avoided crossing the river to join his forces and take up his command of the "Army", the current sourced material in the article doesn't support that allegiance. Do you have reliable sources to support that suggestion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cooperation with Albanian and Moslem nationalists

Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator has not edited the article to add this information

There are multiple sources about Djurisic's negotiations and extensive cooperation with both Muslims and Albanians. According to multiple sources Chetniks from Montenegro even had their posts in Albanian region around Vermosh.

1. Negotiations with Albanians:
   1. Đurišić negotiated with Albanians (Gjon Markagjoni and Prek Cali) in Podgorica in late Autumn 1944:
      1. Redžić, Vučeta (2002). Građanski rat u Crnoj Gori: Dešavanja od sredine 1942. godine do sredine 1945. godine. Stupovi. p. 510. После тога Душан Арсовић је 15.11. позвао др Илију Вујовића на састанак код Павла који је одржан у Голубовцима у Зети. Ђуришић је Машану Аџићу саопштио наређење Драже Михаиловића да одведе делегацију у Скадар и са - Mihailovic ordered to sign agreement with Albanian government to cooperate during eventual Chetnik retreat trough Albania
      2. Ostojić, Radomir J. (1985). Faze događaja - notorne istine: ("urbi et orbi"). p. 234. ... за Босну. Одмах о овом новом наређењу извештени су Марк ђон Маркаја и Принц Каљо са албанским националистима. - When Djurisic decided to go trough Bosnia, he notified Albanian nationalists ...
      3. Đuretić, Veselin (1997). Violence against the Serb uprising. Institut. p. 392. команданта Павла Ђуришића с албанским принцом Марк Ђонијем, одржани у октобру пратили су истовремени покушаји да се успостави контакт са савезницима у Италији [commander Pavle Djurisic with Albanian prenk Mark Gjoni held in October were followed with simultaneous attempts to establish contact with Allies in Italy]
      4. Vukčević, Boško S. (1994). Tito: Architect of Yugoslav Disintegration. Rivercross Pub. p. 304. ISBN 978-0-944957-46-2. In September 1944 Djurishich negotiated with Albanian prince Mark Djoni for a common defense against Communists and the evetual retreat via Albania to Greece to meet our British ally there.
2. Cooperation of Đurišić and Chetniks with Albanians is presented with cited text in article about Prek Cali and Muharrem Bajraktari.
3. Cooperation with Muslims: There are plenty of sources which explain that Đurišić's Chetniks cooperated with Moslem militia to protect from Partisans. Y

This important information deserves careful research and inclusion into this article, at least attributed to the sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what my response is. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

With this edit I added wikilink to SMM. The cooperation with Muslims point is at least partially resolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Defeat of communist forces who attacked Chetniks and Chetnik capture of Mateševo of February 1942

Ćuković, Mirko (1964). Sandžak. Nolit-Prosveta., page 267 explains that on 19 February Partisan forces of more than 800 men from Mateševo organized preemptive attack on Chetniks in Bare Kraljske (village near Kolašin). They were defeated. On 20 February Đurišić distributed arms Italians gave to Chetniks to fight against communists, and on 22 February organized counterattack and captured Mateševo and on 23 February they captured Kolašin.

This information about attack of strong communist forces on Đurišićs Chetniks and their subsequent defeat does not exist in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Over-detailed

Towards the end of the article we see what I consider excess detail regarding CDK operations and how the Chetniks and Germans fought the Partisans in 1944 (detailed formation listings, casualty figures, comprehensive outlines of battles). It's all almost as if we're forgetting the article is about Đurišić and not said formations, military operations, etc. This info would be better suited for Montenegrin Volunteer Corps and articles about the German and Chetnik formations that took part in said operations. Overall, about 6,000 bytes could be skimmed from the article space. Virtually all of it was added by User:Gorran about a year ago and wasn't present when the article was promoted to FA. As always, I'm open to discussion. 23 editor (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely could do with a trim. I say go ahead, I'll chip in if I disagree on anything specific. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Taken off about 5,000 bytes, mostly minute details to do with specific German, Partisan and Chetnik formations, over-detailed battle summaries, etc. The gist of it (as it relates to Đurišić) remains. 23 editor (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look and pipe up if I think anything needs discussion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The section "Collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro" is painfully long. Can you think of an appropriate way of splitting it up? 23 editor (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind. It really is an important part of the story, but it is all within the scope of the section heading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced POV statement in Introduction

I removed the following unsourced, completely POV statement from the introduction:

Đurišić was a very able Yugoslav Chetnik leader; his fighting skills were respected by his allies and opponents alike.

It was restored shortly afterwards by another user.

What justifies it being in the article, given that it's an unsourced and irrelevant opinion?

Havell (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

a. it is sourced in the body, which is what is required by WP:LEAD, and b. because it is relevant to his biography. Simple. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize with @Havell as I drew the same conclusion and also removed the text in question which @Havell cites. However, I don't think the matter is of such pressing importance that we need dispute resolution. @Peacemaker67 is a reliable, seasoned editor and I accept his judgment in this instance. Quis separabit? 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced and relevant to his biography. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Why Djurisic's troops were "separated from the Germans"

Resolved

I put CN tag (diff) to the uncited assertion about motive of Đurišić to retreat independently from the German troops. At that time the text of the article said:

• Đurišić's force separated from the Germans to relieve pressure on the German route of march
• Đurišić's forces proceeded to north-eastern Bosnia to join Mihailović

There were several issues with the first assertion:

1. It was uncited
2. It was contradictory to second assertion.

An uninitiated reader could believe based on the above sentence that Djurisic was completely irrationaly collaborationistic regarding Germans, travelling across mountain peaks instead of main roads, just to relieve pressure on the German route of march.

I am glad that I helped to resolve this issue too. It is resolved by removal of the above uncited assertion (diff) by the editor who inserted it.

This is incorrect, User:Gorran inserted it originally. So get your facts straight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Unresolved

Still, there is another important issue related to the march route of Djurisic's troops. The text of the article says: "Đurišić decided to move to Slovenia ". There are sources which say that the decision was reached by the Montenegrin national committee on two sessions:

• On conference held on 21 February 1945 it was concluded that they should retreat to Slovenia until more favorable political situation for their national cause is reached, inviting Mihailović and CNK to follow their conclusions.
• In the absence of the reply from Mihailović there was new broader conference of the "National Committee of Higher Military Commanders and Intellectuals from Montenegro, Boka and Old Ras" organised on 1 March 1945 Đurišić organised and ended with the same conclusions about the retreat route.
• Civilian intellectuals were included into reaching decision about the retreat routes simply because there were thousands of civilians from Montenegro who retreated from Montenegro together with Djurisic's troops. The text of the article does not mention them, discussing only the retreat of Djurisic's troops.

The source for first two above mentioned assertions is work coauthored by Pajovic, who is already used as source for this article-Pajović, Radoje; Željeznov, Dušan; Božović, Branislav (1987). Pavle Đurišić, Lovro Hacin, Juraj Špiler. Centar za informacije i publicitet. ISBN 978-86-7125-006-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) page 91.

I propose to add above mentioned assertions about decisions what route to choose for retreat because based on the current text of the article, an uninitiated reader might think that Djurisic reached the decision about the route alone or under German instructions.

I propose to investigate the third above assertion, ie what soruces say about the civilians from Montenegro who retreted with Djurisic and to present this information to the readers and what was their fate when they fall into hands of fascists or communist forces during this retreat.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. And don't start with this {{resolved}} {{unresolved}} stuff again. If you have improvements to make to the article, go ahead and make them. If I disagree with the way it has been worded or need to fix the grammar, I will raise it. If we disagree, we can discuss here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Rebels in the part of the front which included Đurišić negotiated peace agreement with Italians in mid-August 1941?

According to Milovanović (Milovanović, Nikola B. (1984). Kontrarevolucionarni pokret Draže Mihailovića. Izdavačka radna organizacija "Rad". {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) rebels on the front which included Đurišić when faced with advancing Italian troops managed to negotiate peace agreement with Italians who accepted some of rebel demands including:

• giving up attempts to establish Montenegro as independent state
• stop torching villages
• retreating Albanian forces

while rebels agreed to:

• allow Italians to re-occupy towns (not villages) captured by rebels during the uprising
• releasing prisoners they took during the uprising

I don't know if there are other sources about this agreement, but if this agreement was indeed concluded, it should be included it into the text of the article to provide important context of activity of Đurišić.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You are the one that has the source, so I suggest you add it. I will fix any citation or grammar issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Đurišić was wounded

More than four years ago there was debate on the talkpage about whether Đurišić was wounded or not in October 1944 in Montenegro. Here is the link to that debate: link.

During this debate I presented multiple sources which confirmed that Đurišić was wounded. The other two editors who participated in the debate labeled those sources as nonreliable. A source extensively used in this article (Pajović, Radoje (1977). Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori: Četnički i federalistički pokret, 1941–1945 [The Counter-revolution in Montenegro: The Chetnik and Federalist Movements, 1941–1945] (in Serbo-Croatian). Cetinje, Yugoslavia: Obod. OCLC 5351995.) also confirms that Djurisic was wounded in Montenegro in October 1944.

On the page 515, in connection to Djurisic's meeting with Albanian delegation, Pajovic confirms that Djurisic was wounded. Here is the quote: "На састанку је постигнута начелна сагласност о сарадњи четника и албанских националиста али је потписивање споразума одложено због Ђуришићевог рањавања." [The basic agreement about cooperation of Chetniks and Albanian nationalists was reached but signing was postponed because of the wounding of Djurisic].

Djurisic's wounding is important aspect of this topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just add it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed "unresolved" tag, as the only reason it is unresolved is because Antid won't add it. He has access to the source, so he should take responsibility for the edit. Adding an unresolved tag when you could resolve it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (what the point is, is beyond me). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue with sourcing: Radoje Pajović

Assertion: The article cites works of Radoje Pajović more than 30 times. Many of the assertions presented in the text of this article rely solely on his works. Having in consideration that Pajović is considered as member of group of Communist party historians who more than any other used his works to promote ideas of the Communist party and struggle against ideas of Chetnik movement. He was also publicly struggling for ideas about autochthonous (non-Serb) Montenegrin ethnicity with autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church, which are also directly opposed to ideas of members or supporters of Chetnik movement. To resolve this issue I propose to replace Pajović with some work authored by neutral uninvolved authors (if it is possible) or to contradict assertions based on Pajović with text based on sources with non-Communist perspective.

Sources:, , ,

References

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this course of action. Pajović is reliable and well cited across the academic literature, and will remain in the article. Serbian sources aren't likely to be neutral as you claim, as they may well be opposed to his ideas about Montenegrin ethnicity and therefore have an axe to grind in criticising his work. I have sought a number of obituaries from Montenegro and elsewhere to compare and contrast with the Serbian news and web sources you have linked, the reliability of which I have yet to look at. Until these have been examined, I suggest you refrain from adding any material from these or attempting to remove Pajović. I remind you that you were TBANed for tendentious editing behaviour on this article in the past, and I will not hesitate to report it if it occurs again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić is Chetnik from Montenegro, surely historians from Montenegro know much more about him and his actions, and that is why this book has been used so many times. Moving that source from the article makes no sense, in any case there are ways to challenge that source but I think everything is clean. Mikola22 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• His roots are irrelevant. The author is obviously biased and should be used as little as possible. Author such as the same Communist fanatic and the likes of MD/wanna be historian Cohen are the reasons why Wikipedia as a project has lower quality of articles then it should be, which is supported by some editors who are not able to comprehend this rather obvious fact - no biased authors should be used. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the extreme POV attempts to discredit a well-respected historian. In international bibliography, he has been assessed as the most prominent Montenegrin historian of this period (Pavlović, Srdja (2008). "Realm of the Black Mountain: A History of Montenegro". Balkanistica. 21: 172.) and esteemed Montenegrin historian (Morrison, Kenneth (2018). Nationalism, Identity and Statehood in Post-Yugoslav Montenegro. Bloomsbury Publishing.) If Sadko and Antidiskriminator don't like the academic assessment and the fact that wikipedia functions according to it, there are other websites which might be more welcome to their approach.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Re academic assessment, the sources I presented for my above statements are written by multiple historians including Adžić, Andrijašević and Dimitrijević.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't remove such an expert from an article. How did you think that this proposal would pass? I thought you and Sadko were joking. Mikola22 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Another Montenegrin historian, Dr Dragutin Papović also heavily criticized Pajović in his PhD thesis as one of the communist party historians (link) who glorified Josip Broz Tito and communist forces. Re to Peacemaker67, the sources I presented are not Serbian news and web sources but exactly more or less obituaries from Montenegro in which Pajović's anti-Serbian and anti-Chetnik activism, both in his real life and his works, is actually openly glorified as something good and normal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No one can stop you from disputing the source, but you know where is the place for that. "Who glorified Josip Broz Tito and communist forces" What he needed, glorify the Ustashas and the Chetniks in order to be an acceptable source? In any case, you know what to do. Mikola22 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, anti-Chetnik/anti-fascist activism is openly accepted and glorified in all countries which celebrate the Victory Day. It definitely is something very good and normal. There are of course websites in which celebration of the anti-fascist victory against Chetnik Nazi collaborators is not considered "something good and normal". Wikipedia is not of those places.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've now read three of the sources cited by Antid, I have been unable to access #1. All but #1 are laudatory, saying that Pajović was "eminent", "reasonable", "analytical", "ethical", "scientifically dignified", "the best expert on the history of the People's Liberation War in Montenegro" etc, I could go on. Nothing negative at all in any of them. The first citation is supposedly from Bojan Dimitrijević (strangely neither his name nor the book title Chetnik Golgotha were translated by Antid, I wonder why?) who is exactly the sort of Chetnik-rehabilitating revisionist historian that Pajović clearly opposed. Pajović openly criticised the efforts of Dimitrijević to rehabilitate Mihailović. It is not at all surprising that Dimitrijević disagrees with and criticises Pajović. In addition, I have sourced and read the obituary by Marijan Mašo Miljić in the Montenegrin Journal for Social Sciences, which I can email to anyone who is interested. It is summarised in the Vijesti article someone else has added to the article which is also by Miljić. It is also highly laudatory. So, we have four laudatory obituaries that highly praise Pajović's historical work and personal ethics, and only Dimitrijević who apparently doesn't, and his motive for doing so is completely transparent. Sadko says "no biased authors should be used", well that surely applies to Dimitrijević. Dimitrijević isn't available online and I have no faith whatsoever that his opinion will be accurately reflected in the article by Antid or any other similar editor with an axe to grind, and in any case, it shouldn't be given much weight because his views about the anti-fascist credentials of the Chetniks are fringe. Stop wasting our time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Issue with family details 2

Resolved

Almost 8 years ago I pointed to the fact (link) that A class biography article about 20th century person should contain family details, like family origin, name of the father, mother, son....

Thanks to my initiative the name of his father was added to the article. But at that time I was unable to find source for rest of his family members, except some websites. In the meantime I found additional and reliable source for the rest of his family members: page 41 and 45 of confirms that Pavle had two children, daughter Ljiljana (1937—1943) and son Ilija who was born in 1940, while his mother was Ivana (from Radović family, clan Brnović).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Given you found the source and can verify it, you should add it. Given your demonstrated history of using dubious sources, I am not taking responsibility for edits involving sources you have found, because if they are wrong, I would be responsible for the edit, not you. I have told you this many times. Do it yourself, I will fix any grammar and formatting issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not RS. The title says it all but sr:Bojan Dimitrijević is also an interesting read. I think that the sole reason why this particular book is being promoted for these minor details, is the inclusion of this particular author in a FA's bibliography in order to legitimize his later use in other articles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Anything by Dimitrijević is fringe. He is a historical revisionist who was key to the rehabilitation of DM, and his views do not coincide with the academic consensus on the Chetnik movement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I of course disagree. In every single dispute between two of us you win, against yourself, by refuting your own position. In this case there is a triple self-refutal.

1. Work of Dimitrijević is already used as a source for this article and remained in it for more than 6 years and with more than 120,000 views since then without any complaint, which counts as silent consensus.
2. Because there is no such thing as academic consensus on the Chetnik topic you yourself insisted on sources which would balance Chetnik and Partisan perspective diff.
3. When both non-Communist and pro-Communist sources are used in article building you complain if the communist sources are used for bare facts diff. Now when I propose to add a bare facts based on the anti-Communist source you again complain because the source I presented is anti-Communist, contradicting your own initial arguing for balanced perspective. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. I didn't say it couldn't be used, I said "Given you found the source and can verify it, you should add it". I said the views of Dimitrijević on the Chetnik movement are fringe, not his recording of PD's family details. That would be obtuse. Maleschreiber said it isn't RS, and I disagree. For this material Dimitrijević is RS, as far as I am concerned, and I don't oppose its use for that purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are other sources about Đurišić's family. Antidiskriminator has been using this extreme POV work to write articles like Communist massacre of Cetinje civilians, which is basically a fake news version of a smaller in scale, real event in which fascist collaborators were executed by the Partisans. In Antidiskriminator's narrative they were "civilians" who tried to escape the red terror and retreated toward Slovenia together with national forces commanded by Pavle Đurišić. What's missing is that Đurišić's remnants and other collaborators of the quisling regime were following the Nazi army because they knew that when the quisling regimes fell they would be tried. After that we have the attempt to legitimize as an actual event the Mitrovica Agreement, a conspiracy theory propagated by the Chetniks according to which communists and Ustaše joined against "Serbdom and Ortodoxy" Peacemaker67, I understand that a source may be reliable within a given context and unreliable in another one, but the situation in WWII articles about Yugoslavia is such that all unreliable sources should be removed regardless of the context and a wide community discussion should be held in order to stop the continuous deterioration of the project. At this point, articles with extreme POVs and equally bad bibliography and even conspiracy theories are being handled just with tags. That is a half measure which doesn't solve the problem at its core IMO.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that point of view, and have seen the Cetinje article, it is a POV mess like most articles Antid writes. Let's just concentrate on what is acceptable on this article in terms of some pretty minor detail about PD's family. The wider issue is probably one for ArbCom, as it seems to me that Antid's TBAN taught him nothing, and it should just be reinstated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

WP:URFA/2020

Do we have a source for File:Proboj njemackog korpusa iz okruzenja u Crnoj Gori.jpg? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

ping @Gog the Mild as it is scheduled for TFA. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it, don't know how I missed that. A post-previous TFA insertion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag

It's'a good image of those two human being in cold weather dressing.. 45.117.246.231 (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no flag on this article, what are you referring to? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)