Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive21

Completing mediation

Participants have not been active in this mediation for some time and I request we now bring it to a close. My preference would be to complete on as much as possible before closing, though. Here's my proposed plan:

1. We take a look at the lead and have a focussed discussion about the wording.
2. We review the "Legacy" section (using the version that participants had worked on).
3. While the above is happening, I will work on pulling together a final draft of the other sections (again, using the sections that participants have worked on - volunteers would be welcome to assist with this).
4. We keep the momentum, moving on if there are sticking points. At the end we can review these and see if they can be resolved.

I propose that we do all this within a fairly tight timeframe. I am open to suggestions from participants as to process and timing. It will be important that we follow the "Groundrules" posted at the top of this page, bearing in mind that they are based on WP policy. Let me know if you are willing to work on the above plan. If participants agree, I propose that we start as possible. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, and as one of the main participants here, I have to say this mediation has been mismanaged in numerous ways and beyond repair. This much is obvious from its duration, which can by no means be blamed on any sort of neglect on the part of the participants. As I attempted to explain earlier, a mediation like this would not help solve any problem that was not already manageable without mediation. I do not hold a grudge against Sunray, but I believed he made a mistake. I also do not intend to abide by the conclusions drawn here, regardless of any (essentially unilateral) "proclamations" that may be posted in an effort to make this seem a less pointless affair. The conflict is between User:FkpCascais and myself - and it has not been solved in any way because avoiding its resolution has been (and apparently still is) an "official policy" of this mediation. The amount of wasted effort is simply appalling. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the words that the conflict is "between you and me" because many other editors share both, your and mine POV. I supose you mean solving the esential point of including, or not, your acusational "Axis collaborator" in the lede, but from what I understood, Sunray has agreed to solve it, so, here we are. FkpCascais (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant that that was how it started. What I mean, plain and simple, is that we did not manage to solve the main issue of Draža Mihailović's collaboration - not just the wording of the lead. The question essentially boils down to "yes" or "no". Either he did collaborate, or he did not. The idea is to solve that problem itself through a careful examination of what the sources can tell us, thus arriving to a wording that follows the sources most appropriately. As for this mediation, its essentially nothing more than a "ceasefire". It has not, and will not, solve anything. I'm completely through wasting my time and energy here.

I've agreed not to label Mihailović as a "collaborator", you were right there, Fkp. But I will certainly write-up a detailed, fully-sourced section on his treasonous activities with the Italians, the Nedić government, and yes, the Germans (something along the lines of the Chetniks article section). To avoid conflict, I shall simply use words from the sources themselves. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"... avoiding its resolution has been (and apparently still is) an 'official policy' of this mediation." It seems I have not been clear. You say that the conflict is between FkpCascais and you. Fkp disagrees. Rather than get into a debate about the real nature of the conflict, I am suggesting that we: a) maintain civility (i.e., follow the groundrules), and, b) deal with it.

If you recall I had tried to stop the discussion between you and Fkp during the discussion about the "Legacy" section. I regarded the issue in play during that discussion to be at the heart of the matter. Dealing with that section (in which only you and Fkp were in discussion/dispute) may address your issues. Would you be willing to deal with that now? Sunray (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I am allowed to say that seems reasonable to have a objective lede without too much polemics. We can allways go into details in the storyline. FkpCascais (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lead should give an objective overview of the article. Sunray (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you Sunray have any lead that we could post it here and start seing if it works? FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but let's first see who is going to participate in the rest of this mediation. I've suggested that some mediation between the two of you, looking at the "legacy" section, would be a good idea. So far DIREKTOR has not agreed to that. If the two of you do not want to work on that, I will poll the other participants to see what to do. The question to the two of you is this: Do you want to engage in a structured discussion to find a way of editing collaboratively? Sunray (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sunray, I mean, I´m the one here oposing to just a few fundamental questions, and nothing else basically. All I expect is to see the article to sound fair and objectively at the end. Recently I did an exercise, which was to try to see if I could assist and improve the Croatian Ustaše leader Ante Pavelić article: [[1]]. OK, now didn´t meant to use that here, but as exmple, and knowing that I am Serb and that Pavelic was the responsable for the major number of killings against Serbs and that my both grand-fathers had him as enemy, well, did I had the necessity to add all sorts of more acusations to the text, more victims, paint him further unhuman? That could be expected right, but strangelly no, I didn´t had that feeling and I even sugested that the reasons for the Croatian discontent and the subsequent acceptance of this regime should also be included, so the reasons behind the movement and Pavelic should be explained. The article deals with his crimes already, and more could be added, but I really felt healed from nationalism and hateriot, and I was capable of going further. I knew this about me, but perhaps people here on WP didn´t. Now, WP is not a "court", WP is not here to judge and blame the ones few editors consider them guilty. WP is, but it shouldn´t be politisized! Biographies of death people must include as much as possible about peoples lives, not to focus only in one episode, with the repetitivness troughout the entire article, with selectively choosed and manipulted sources. People like Pavelic, Mihailovic, De Gaulle, Tito, were all historical leaders that found themselfs into these hard circunstances in WWII, but we are not here telling one episode of their lives, but their entire biographies, so editors that are interested in editing about them in a NPOV manner should be prefered over the ones that are editing the articles with the only purpouse to make a point and condemn the persons because of their personal preconceptions. I feel good about myself for being able to rationally contribute to a oposing article of my nature, I am just sad that there are still many editors around here that still live in the hateriot and wars, and want to have their side of the story at any cost. That is the only rational reason I can find for direktors Axis-collaborator to be included and protected, sustained just with a couple of selected and manipulated sources from people hardly considerable neutral on the issue, against USA, French and other high condecorations, an US Congress post-mortum trial, the fact that Mihailovic had his head hounted from the Germans troughout the war, despite all contradictory facts that even the most acusational sources admit, despite the evident knolledge that the Yugoslav communist propaganda obviously had almost half a century to forcebly manipulate domestically and inbternationally this entire story, and even all that time had only archived to convinced some historians, but unfortunatelly, many ordinary people. Now, if we see what is in one side and what in the other we have a clearer perspective, if we see the attitude and final goal of participants here we are also have a clearer picture. Nazification is a serios matter, and the lightness and oportunism how some editors use it only shows their disrespect and general unknolledge on the issue. I am willing to take this mediation to the end, and be helpfull and collaborative with all this, but I am not sure that without a strong imposition, the other users will just do their old same manipulation here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about biographies needing to reflect the compass of an individual's entire life. However, there are sometimes defining events that also have to be given due weight. Our task, as editors, is to try to find the balance. It's not easy with a complex and controversial figure such as M. I admire your willingness to stick with the mediation. I'm am waiting for DIREKTOR to indicate his readiness to continue. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for intervening again but I just saw your conversation with direktor on his talk page. I also apologise for my previous long comment, but it came after some heated discussions on related articles so that is why I said some things in it that I normally simply wouldn´t. I also thank you because I think you understood this.

Regarding the unwilingness on direktors behalve, I would just like to say the following:

• I am not complicating basically anything. I don´t deny the existance of collaboration and I didin´t ever intended to glorify him, so I see no reason whatsover why someone "can´t work with me on this". I am basically not defending any radical view on this, just the oposite.
• (Personal comments removed per agreement on this talk page) FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The net result of my discussion with DIREKTOR on his talk page was that he has declined a facilitated discussion with you. So I am going to poll all participants with a suggestion that we wrap up by doing #3, above - that is, take a look at the draft we have in its entirety, agree on changes and sources and then post it. Sunray (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. FkpCascais (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia

I won't be able to participate very intensely for the next three to four weeks. My exams are coming up and I am on a Wikibreak. I will be posting mostly around during the lunchbreak from the computer at the hospital around luch every day, i.e. around noon, and mostly on weekdays.

That said, I would like to get rid of the preliminaries regarding sources. In particular, I would like to establish the two volumes of War and Revolution in Yugoslavia by Prof. Tomasevich as a reliable source with regard to this mediation. Or to be more precise, I would like to establish this source as (to quote the American Historical Association) "the most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia".

This is an immensely detailed, complete, and incredibly well referenced source that can, as such, be used to solve virtually any dispute about WWII Yugoslavia in 15 minutes. And that is approximately how long this mediation should have lasted more than a year ago. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

About the work

• War and Revolution in Yugoslavia is a two-part series:
  • Tomasevich, Prof. Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume I: the Chetniks. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804708576
  • Tomasevich, Prof. Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: occupation and collaboration. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804736154

The late Jozo Tomasevich was Professor Emeritus at San Francisco State University. The scholar emigrated from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the US under a Rockafeller scholarship in 1938, received US citizenship, spent the war in San Francisco, and never lived in the post-war socialist Yugoslavia. He was registered as a Yugoslav American, due to the fact that he emigrated into the US during a period when the modern individual nationalities of the former Yugoslavia were not recognized. Peer reviews refer to him as an "American scholar".

I must emphasize all this as a crucial difference: he is not a local author. I will oppose the inclusion of any local publications (books published in Yugoslavia or later in the former Yugoslavia) as reliable sources, unless they have positive international peer reviews. Local books are, as a rule, complete garbage. They are for the most part either communist or nationalist propaganda, depending on the date of their publication. This work is 1) published in in the US, and by none other than Stanford U, 2) the author is referred to as an American scholar, 3) has extremely positive international peer reviews.

I will also add that the author frequently criticizes the Yugoslav authorities for their unscientific treatment of the period, and attacks them for being denied access to relevant documents in the Yugoslav archives (e.g. pp.243-246, Volume I: The Chetniks). The books were first published in San Francisco, in English. The author unfortunately died before the third volume, The Partisans, was written. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Here are honestly all the reviews I could find for these two publications. If anyone can find any more, positive or negative, I urge you to post them here (in brief). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

The American Historical Review, American Historical Association [2] The first book of this study, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks (1975), revealed Jozo Tomasevich (1908–1994) to be a first-rate researcher, and even a quarter of a century after it first appeared, it is still the most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia. Tomasevich combined the distanced objectivity of a scholar from another country with an active level of knowledge about a subject that can often be had only by a scholar from the land whose history is being studied. The book under review is Tomasevich's second book of the series, almost completed before his death. His daughter Neda edited the whole text to make it stylistically consistent and easy to read. All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria) ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. Tomasevich also describes the position of the churches during occupation and revolution, the destruction of the Jewish community in Yugoslavia, Axis exploitation of the Yugoslav economy, the economic consequences of war and exploitation, and some other subjects. ...All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come. — The American Historical Review, 2001 (reviewing Volume II and commenting on Volume I) The English Historical Review, Oxford University (translated, "Foreword from the publishers" [3]) The events in Yugoslavia following the dissolution of the multinational state in 1941. . . were so complex, that up until now not a single adequately complete and objective history about that period has been written. With the book The Chetniks. . . as the first part of the announced three-part study, promises to bring such complete and complex history into view. . . Professor Tomasevich deserves the highest commendation for a thorough and objective scientific approach to such a very complex subject, because of which this book will remain essential reading for a long time.. — Prof. Stephen Clissold, The English Historical Review, January 1977 (reviewing Volume I) The Historical Journal, Cambridge University (translated, "Foreword from the publishers" [4]) A book with deep historic insight, only to be expected from the author of the classical work Peasants, Politics, and Economic Changes in Yugoslavia, published 20 years ago... — Prof. D. Wilson, The Historical Journal, Vol. 19/1, March 1976 (reviewing Volume I) The Times Higher Education Supplement (translated, "Foreword from the publishers" [5]) Professor Tomasevich, a noted American historian of Dalmatian roots, wrote a work of great scientific worth, with a far wider application than even the title itself suggests.. — F. B. Singleton, The Times Higher Education Supplement, August 22, 1975 (reviewing Volume I) Yale University [6] This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states. — Prof. Ivo Banac, Yale University Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries [7] There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources. — Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries History: Reviews of New Books [8] The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones. — History: Reviews of New Books The Canadian Slavonic Papers [9] War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War. — The Canadian Slavonic Papers Royal Military Academy Sandhurst The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him. — Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Clark University There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation... ...Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work. — Dr Eric Gordy, Clark University (currently Senior Lecturer in South East European Politics, University College London [10]) The Slavic Review One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945. — The Slavic Review The one "notable" negative review I could find comes from Karapandžić, an ex-Ljotić-ist (Ljotićevac). What is a Ljotić-ist? A Ljotić-ist is an ex-member/supporter of the quisling Serbian Volunteer Corps of Dimitrije Ljotić, essentially a Serbian fascist movement. In his (non-peer review) magazine Amerikanski Srbobran ("The American Serb-Defender"), Karapandžić berates the scholar denying the veracity of the Chetnik-related information presented in the book. The only basis for this denial is, as the author puts it: ...jedan Amerikanac hrvatskog porijekla ne bi smio tako samopouzdano izricati svoje sudove o jednom srbijanskom političkom i vojnom pokretu i o historijskoj epizodi koja je prvenstveno srpska. ...an American of Croatian origins should not be so brazenly stating his judgements on a Serbian political and military movement, and a historical episode which is first and foremost Serbian. — Karapandžić, Amerikanski Srbobran ("The American Serb-Defender"), Serbian Orthodox Society "Srbobran", Pittsburgh July 1976 In this, the ex-Ljotić-ist closely mirrors the arguments of User:FkpCascais for disregarding this publication. The work was also thoroughly denounced by members of the Croatian Ustaše emigration such as Alex N. Dragnich, and Bogdan Radić in the Hrvatska revija ("Croatian Magazine"). I will add that, according to the publishers, the reviews are in general virtually universally positive. I could not find any more reviews. If someone manages to unearth any more reviews, negative or otherwise, please post them here.

Discussion

Based on these reviews from the AHA, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Clarke, Sandhurst, and numerous other respected peer review publications, I propose that this source be accepted as a first-rate, reliable source on this issue. I am hoping the mediator will assert whether this source meets the requirements of WP:V. When accepted as such, I expect information presented therein shall be given due credence (as opposed to the state of affairs up until now).

Furthermore, I will be honest: if this source is not affirmed with this discussion as a reliable source based on user opinion or whatnot (as was the case up until now), I shall conclude it is impossible to make any progress here. In such a case the main problem with this mediation shall be fully manifest. These are not my "conditions", I am not "blackmailing" anyone, nor do I think I can in fact "blackmail" anyone with my participation. It is simply that posting reliable sources is all anyone can do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But he is a local author, he simply emigrated later in life... why you claim otherwise already when it is clearly untrouth. He was born in Dalmatia, Croatia. He is actually writing on something that hapend in the place he was borned. Why you insist in showing him as foreign? It doesn´t matter, and it is untrouth. FkpCascais (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go.. It does not matter where the man was "borned", what I am essentially talking about above is recognition and/or publication outside the war-ridden, nationalism/communism-infused Balkans. The goal is to avoid Balkans political bias. The criteria is international peer review (see the wikilink if you still don't know what that is), not someone's place of birth. I am opposed to locally published authors with no international recognition, their place of birth is irrelevant. This person is a Stanford-published author with superb independent reviews.

Just to be clear: I am hypothetically not opposed to disregarding this author, but any allegations of bias (and/or "untrouth") must be based on negative peer reviews, NOT on the say-so of a Wikipedia user with a vested interest. Just for example, Dr. Eric Gordy (Senior Lecturer in South East European Politics, University College London) uses the words "the most objective account available". Do you feel you are called-upon to say whether this is "untrouth" or not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I said that because in your first comment you highlighted the fact that he was not local, when in fact he is. You highlighted that fact when no one said anything yet, neither asked you nothing about it. And why you say all this? Did anyone ever tried to use local authors beside Tomasevic? I don´t think so. You are making problems somewhere where they don´t exist. Chill out. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You each raise interesting points. DIREKTOR presents the case for Tomasevich as a reliable source. He asks whether it meets the requirements of WP:V. Fkp points out that T. is a Croatian by birth.

My view is that Tomasevich is indeed a reliable source and must be included in any comprehensive article. Historiography suggests that factors such as national origin affect what an individual selects to include and exclude in a historical narrative. Thus WP policies, such as WP:UNDUE require that we also present other perspectives. It is up to us as editors to establish the weight to give to sources. Sunray (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray, your conclusions are precise. I protested because direktor insisted in something that just isn´t like that. I don´t opose using him as source, but we don´t need to missinform either. You are absolutely right about WP:UNDUE, and I am totaly in favour of presenting a final article where the balance of all reliable sources will be presented. I said this already before, and you were also very clear in your words regarding the sources, so direktor will have to understand that we cannot use Tomasevich as the holy bible on this...

I have been gathering neutral reliable sources, but that doesn´t mean I accept direktors interpretation of the ones he presents. On each subject we´ll discuss and see how to present events in NPOV manner using all sources. I will unfortunatelly be off-on these days because of the mini-hollydays, so I plan to return in full power, if needed, on begining of next week. Best regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have moved here material posted by DIREKTOR while he considers the request I have made on my talk page here that when he is ready to return to the mediation he sign the Groundrules. Sunray (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I quit

The mediation has been completely mismanaged and is not going anywhere. Had this been handled in as a factual dispute, the mediation would have been concluded within a matter of days. Instead, the conflict was treated as a typical "Balkanite squabble", a user disagreement where the actual facts are too "blurry" and in the end unimportant - when they are in fact simple nd straightforward. This leaves us with very likely the longest RfM in history. The mediator has sought to find a "middle ground" between user claims and opinion on the one side, and scholarly sources on the other, in effect treating his role as such that he must bend, evade, and even ignore the facts and sources to achieve an agreement in an issue he has not really taken the time to understand (even after all this time). As such, I strongly feel the mediator should apologize for being so instrumental in squandering all this user effort on the project.

In spite of all this, the issue here is a factual dispute. As such, and since the facts of the matter could not possibly be any clearer, I am confident that it will be far more rapidly settled through other means. As for this farcical ancient RfM, whatever nonsense "conclusions" may be drawn-up (for the purpose of disguising its utter failure), everyone here may rest assured I for one have no intention whatsoever of abiding by them (nor are any of us required by policy or guideline to do so in any way). As any good Wikipedian should know, the only thing that should influence article content are sources.

I therefore heartily reccomend that all users who've had the misfortune of wasting their free time and effort here, and who want to stop dancing around the issues, to get out while they can still salvage some interest in this issue. The one good thing that may come out of all this, is that maybe now at last, admins and neutral users will take a more active part in the discussion on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you please restore my post here [i.e., on the talk page], Sunray. It is not at all acceptable that you should remove any negative sentiments one may express regarding this mess. You have lately gone quite a bit overboard with (re)moving posts by other editors. One gets the impression you are censoring what you do not like, such as criticism of the mediation. My recent thread holds a a single post, does not disrupt the mediation, and concerns other users here as well. I insist on it being returned to where I posted it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My response to DIREKTOR is here. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)