Talk:Chetniks

Proposal for Ethnic conflicts section

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

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

Manipulation of the article

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

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

Ethnic cleansing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serbian chetniks and others

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

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

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

Recasted lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is obviously not me having problems here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First line of lede

The current version is:

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

I suggest we consider changing it to:

• Chetnik is a name chosen by a number of Serbian nationalist or royalist militia or paramilitary organizations operating in the Balkans during the 20th century. Although the term has been used to designate a variety of groups throughout the century,

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

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

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

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

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