Theirrulez (talk | contribs) |
FkpCascais (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
:Please everyone accept my apologies for taking part without invitation, even if just for a moment, in this mediation discussion. I have a question about neutrality of some modifications I did on the Bleiburg Massacre article, a secondary issue, but closely related to Chetniks and Mihailovic and even more closely related to what you are discussing about. |
:Please everyone accept my apologies for taking part without invitation, even if just for a moment, in this mediation discussion. I have a question about neutrality of some modifications I did on the Bleiburg Massacre article, a secondary issue, but closely related to Chetniks and Mihailovic and even more closely related to what you are discussing about. |
||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleiburg_massacre&action=historysubmit&diff=364447426&oldid=364426007 Here] you can find exactly what I wrote (reverted, by the way): I'd really like to know if you consider those edits in line with what you stated above about collaborationism of Draza Mikailovic and the Chetniks. Tank you to kindly give me an answer, and exscuse me again for my extemporaneous post. - [[User:Theirrulez|Theirrulez]] ([[User talk:Theirrulez|talk]]) 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleiburg_massacre&action=historysubmit&diff=364447426&oldid=364426007 Here] you can find exactly what I wrote (reverted, by the way): I'd really like to know if you consider those edits in line with what you stated above about collaborationism of Draza Mikailovic and the Chetniks. Tank you to kindly give me an answer, and exscuse me again for my extemporaneous post. - [[User:Theirrulez|Theirrulez]] ([[User talk:Theirrulez|talk]]) 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Your edit is obviously more objective, but has found oposition from the same POV pushing group. It is also dubious to describe the Chetniks as (exclusively) "Serb and Montenegrin", Serbs and Montenegrins were majority in it, but there were other nationalities present in it, same case like in the Partisans, and in the Yugoslav population itself... [[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] ([[User talk:FkpCascais|talk]]) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:53, 27 May 2010
My name
I am removing my name from this list. I do not wish to partake in this mediation, and appear to have been added because I reverted some edits to this page while on WP:RCP. The actions which I reverted removed references from the page. Although I agree mediation is needed, I do not feel I need to be a part of it. Also, can someone WP:DUCK the IP that reported me, 87.25.163.32, 151.95.202.227 and the other IPs making the same edit as them to anyone in this case? If so, we may need to clean our dresser drawers. Hamtechperson 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Description of the issues
I feel it may be necessary to clearly point out that the issues listed by User:FkpCascais are not agreed upon. They are, in fact, obviously biased, simply incorrect and/or distorted for the benefit of the author's side of the debate in a somewhat naïve attempt to canvass the mediation.
- "An inflexible insistance on behalve of User:DIREKTOR in the heavy and serious accusation to consider, and include in the lede, Mihailovic "an World War II Axis collaborator" is being challenged. He backes his statement with 4 sources, and the interpretation of them has also being discussed."
- There are no alleged "accusations", this is not a court of law (the man, however, has indeed been convicted of these "accusations" in a court of law). There are merely facts sourced by some five university publications by historical experts. User:FkpCascais is the only one insisting on "interpreting" sources which are little more than a professional listing of facts and cannot be "interpreted" with much latitude.
- The text suggests that others are introducing these "accusations", while they were included in the article for months and were only removed by User:FkpCascais recently. Thus starting this whole mess.
- My position is anything but "inflexible" in that I am willing to accept any version of text deemed neutral by other involved parties. I was and am merely insistent that the sourced information about Draža Mihailović's collaboration not be removed by User:FkpCascais.
- "Several parts of this (Mihailovic) and related articles have been edited by DIREKTOR in accordance to this accusations. A more NPOV editing is demanded by many other editors regarding this issue, since there are many contradictory sources."
- Again, it can easily be shown with diffs that User:FkpCascais was the one who altered the long-standing version of the lead that included a sourced statement on Mihailović's collaboration. And again, there are obviously no "accusations" taking place on enWiki.
- "An inclusion of Gen.Draža Mihailović and the Chetniks on the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has also been challenged."
- The user here follows the proper course of events, stating clearly that he has removed (very well sourced) information, not reverted an addition of information (as he suggested previously).
- "The reliability of some sources is being challenged on both sides."
- The reliability of sources is not being challenged "on both sides" since there are is not a single solitary secondary source supporting the position of User:FkpCascais. The user's "challenge" of the half a dozen or so cited professional university publications opposing him is based solely on his personal opinion of the university professors publishing the sourced information. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Removing IP sock edits
I removed the issues listed by the IP sockpuppet for a number of reasons. The user behind the IP is a violent multiple sockpuppeteer with a history of vandalism, personal attacks, and WP:OUTING attempts against me personally (he "has it in for me", as it were). The sock also obviously did not participate in the dispute in any way and has added his own, completely different and long-since concluded issues that may well unnecessarily confound attempts to understand the already complex issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Undoing posts by other users
(Discussion removed.) —AGK 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Reminder to parties
We're here to discuss the differences relating to issues of article content. Discussions relating to the conduct of another user are outwith this case's scope. Please be advised that the mediator will not attempt to police party conduct. If it becomes impossible to mediate this dispute over bickering between parties, the mediator will probably find himself with no option but to close the case. Please don't make the mediator's job more difficult than it has to be. Hoping that co-operation will be forthcoming, AGK 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"Sunshine" for everybody... :))
At last the sun shines into our dark and forgotten corner of Wikipedia, tearing away the cobwebs and driving away the shadow... :)
(Forgive the "poetic" moment, I couldn't resist.) I'd give you the traditional greeting Sunray, but its not easy to use a Kalashnikov online. Welcome to the Balkans, may god help you... :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome. It is not my first trip to the Balkans, so I have a sense of what you mean. As to the poetic moment, it is my hope that the mediation might indeed result in a ray of sunshine. If it does, it will be though the efforts and goodwill of the participants and I will try hard to promote that. I also appreciate the humour, it is often an asset in helping to find agreement, I think. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Update
I've asked Sunray (talk · contribs), the mediator, for an update on the status of this case. I am sorry for the delay thus far. AGK 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the update. Please, take all the time needed, Sunray (talk · contribs) already explained that he may need some time, on mine side, I have no problems with it, even having a contrary version in the article on present time to the one I stand for. I will express my gratitude once more for letting us know this, and it is just good to know that the case is not forgotten. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Begin mediation
Welcome to the mediation. My apologies for the delay. I've read the article talk page and I am delighted with the civil manner in which participants have generally conducted discussion thus far. To begin, I would ask each participant to make a brief opening statement of no more than 200 words describing your view of the dispute and opportunities for resolution. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note that I have made some comments on the opening statements thus far. I am doing this so that we can move forward and get to the issues. I think we have a representative sample of points of view thus far. I am aware that there are some opening statements still to come, and those participants may add them in the next short while or so. Sunray (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by FkpCascais
Yes, the talk page was quite an experience... Well, I´ll try to be as breaf as possible. What I defend here is that D.Mihailovic is being exageratedly and intentionally desribed as Axis-collaborator when the trouth is much complex and the sources clearly doesn´t put the things that simple. This way, his person, and the moviment itself, are leveled as some of the worste WWII criminals, when in reality, he lead a resistance movement that ocasionally, and under extremely hard circunstancies, had to collaborate. The only sources that can eventualy source the statements made by User:DIREKTOR are the ones that come from works of Jozo Tomasevich, wich comes to be Croatian, and wrote them in Tito Yugoslavia, thus, understandably, not being able to be the most objective, and reliable, when comes to describe a Serbian monarchic movement, and its leader. For such a serios acusation, additional sources are needed to confirm it, under WP:REDFLAG. I just pretend to bring the article to a much neutral ground.
- Welcome, and I am extremely greatfull that you accepted this mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by DIREKTOR
imho, despite appearances this is a rather straightforward matter. Draža Mihailović was the commander of the Chetniks, a force that engaged in widespread collaboration (for a brief account please see the fully sourced summary of the subject here), yet for some reason their commander, an icon of Serbian nationalism, is completely "off limits". There are a large number of scholarly 2ndary sources, professional university publications clearly listing unambiguous acts of collaboration directly on the part of this person, as well as evidence of his support for the widespread (by 1945 virtually universal) collaboration among his subordinates, not to mention the lack of any punitive action against them. User:FkpCascais has, however, chosen to dismiss all of the above with very little or no sources in his support. He categorically and uncompromisingly opposes the inclusion of the word "collaboration" in any shape or form. The only worthwhile counter-argument is the lack of discipline among the Chetniks. This however, while undoubtedly true, does nothing to "excuse" Mihailović from his own actions (as is briefly elaborated upon here).
This would be the brief account. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Georges
Hi. I haven't even looked at the article for several weeks in order to avoid being irritated by it. I actually promised myself that I would work on it by the end of april, but have been lacking the time to do so. Woe on me. However, I hope I'll be able to do so in a reasonable delay : what has been keeping me from doing so is sheer laziness, as the version I last saw, which described Mihailovic as, above all, a hardcore collaborationist, needed to be rewritten entirely, and I do mean entirely. Mihailovic was certainly no traitor and no collaborator, even though he was an abject failure as a resistance leader : to begin with, he was, historically, the first person to start a genuine guerilla movement in nazi-occupied Europe. He was initially trumpeted as a hero by Allied propaganda. To describe him, first and foremost, as a collaborator, is highly misleading to say the least. That he was - IMHO - a questionable and semi-ineffectual (make that completely ineffectual; I personally consider him a klutz and an incompetent) military leader does not make him a traitor. Nor does the fact that some Chetniks leaders collaborated with the Italians and the Germans. The Chetnik "movement" (or so-called movement) was, as a whole, incoherent and ineffectual and some of its components were highly reprehensible, but putting all the blame on its nominal leader is IMHO a severe error in judgement. In my opinion, the Mihailovic, Chetniks and Yugoslav front (and assorted battles) articles have to be rewritten completely by unbiased editors. That's what should be done before any mediation (which is welcome BTW) is undertaken. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by BoDu
The rules say this: "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources". As there is no a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, I think the articles should emphasize that some scholars claim Mihaliović/Chetnik movement engaged in collaboration with the Axis. And, logically, there should not be inclusion of Mihailović and all Chetniks movement on the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. BoDu (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by Nuujinn
I don't really have a dog in the race, I just came over a while back to see if I could lend a hand as a neutral editor. So far, I've seen lots of sourcing showing that Mihaliović and Chetniks collaborated with the Axis. Chetniks also fought with the Axis, fought the partisans, fought the Allies, rescued soldiers from both sides, and engaged in ethnic cleansing. It was obviously a bad and complicated time. I'm still reading, but so far the sources that I've found that claim that Mihaliović did not collaborate are not very good, in that they are lacking references, are first person accounts, and are generally very slanted. I've asked other editors to supply sources, and a number of very good sources provided by other editors claim that Mihaliović wasn't just a collaborator, but so far I haven't seen any that are verifiable and reliable that claim that Mihaliović did not collaborate. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by AlasdairGreen27
All of the sources agree that Mihailović collaborated. There are no sources that say that he did not. None. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is appropriate that the lead of this article should affirm what the sources say. The extent of his collaboration should be discussed later in the article.
Opening statement by Isidoradaven
Mediator's comments on opening statements to date
My thanks to those who replied in less than 200 words. I suggest that we continue to be concise in our posts in this mediation. It helps in two ways: 1) Writers tend to consider their posts carefully, thus making them clearer, and, 2) readers (often pressed for time) can easily grasp important points other participants are making.
Here are some conclusions I’ve drawn from the opening statements:
- Draža Mihailović is viewed very differently by different commentators and sources
- There are strong political views about Mihailović and the Chetniks’ role in WWII.
- As an encyclopedia, we need to be cognizant of these views and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, cover them in relation to their prevalence.
- The article should be written in an unbiased manner.
- Agreement on credible sources will be important in reaching agreement on article text, and thus critical for the success of this mediation.
- WP:RS and WP:VER will provide guidance
Do participants agree with the foregoing? If not, please specify any points you think I’ve got wrong or missed. BTW my own summary is about 200 words long. I aim to make my posts shorter as we go :) Sunray (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. FkpCascais (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. BoDu (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, --Nuujinn (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Participation
Two individuals have been added to the participants list since the mediation was formally accepted: Isidoradaven and Nuujinn. I note that both have been involved in discussions related to this mediation, so their participation makes sense to me. However, I would like to check with other participants and the filing party about this. Is there any reason why Isidoradaven and Nuujinn should not be included? Sunray (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to withdraw if anyone objects to my participation. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem about Nuujinn is that he repeatedly needs to show himself as neutral and "without a dog in this race" when all points to the oposite. He clearly defended one side since the beggining, and even failed to give equal treatment when it came about the behavior of intervenients on the talk page, allways defending one side. He definitelly is not neutral on this, and this phalse neutrality, perhaps unconcient (WP:AGF), makes me opose to his participation on this debate. All this is quite contrary to all other participants, including Isidoradaven, who clearly stand behind what defend. FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting comment. Neutrality is not a prerequisite for being a participant in mediation. I believe that we all have biases and it is what we do with them that counts. Neutrality is an important value in Wikipedia. The mediation will be served if participants strive for it, but I wouldn't say that it is a hanging offense if someone demonstrates bias. Sunray (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, I agree, I just asking if "phalse neutrality" is positive for this discussion? I could also be rightfully repeating that I am not neither a Mihailovic, neither a Chetnik simpatizer, but I don´t use that as a fact that demonstrates that my judgment on this is probably more right. I just think that everybody should say what defends without constantly attempting to bring your opinion to his side with some alledged neutrality. You are the mediator, and "we" are the participants, and if some participants don´t have this clear, I don´t see the benefit of having them on this discussion, but obviously, I will accept every decition taken on this. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, are you suggesting that I do not accept Sunray's role as mediator? As for what I "defend," I would like to think that I defend well sourced material. But as I say, if you or anyone else objects to my participation, I'll be glad to withdraw from the mediation. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, I agree, I just asking if "phalse neutrality" is positive for this discussion? I could also be rightfully repeating that I am not neither a Mihailovic, neither a Chetnik simpatizer, but I don´t use that as a fact that demonstrates that my judgment on this is probably more right. I just think that everybody should say what defends without constantly attempting to bring your opinion to his side with some alledged neutrality. You are the mediator, and "we" are the participants, and if some participants don´t have this clear, I don´t see the benefit of having them on this discussion, but obviously, I will accept every decition taken on this. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting comment. Neutrality is not a prerequisite for being a participant in mediation. I believe that we all have biases and it is what we do with them that counts. Neutrality is an important value in Wikipedia. The mediation will be served if participants strive for it, but I wouldn't say that it is a hanging offense if someone demonstrates bias. Sunray (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem about Nuujinn is that he repeatedly needs to show himself as neutral and "without a dog in this race" when all points to the oposite. He clearly defended one side since the beggining, and even failed to give equal treatment when it came about the behavior of intervenients on the talk page, allways defending one side. He definitelly is not neutral on this, and this phalse neutrality, perhaps unconcient (WP:AGF), makes me opose to his participation on this debate. All this is quite contrary to all other participants, including Isidoradaven, who clearly stand behind what defend. FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with FkpCascais (talk · contribs) that Nuujinn (talk · contribs) is not neutral on this, but I do not object to his participation. BoDu (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that I should be a participant also. I have been involved with this dispute with direktor in the past. I posted, but this has been removed by Fkp... [1] (LAz17 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
- User:FkpCascais does like very much to remove posts he dislikes [2]. Welcome, LAzo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fkp, it is my view that removing posts in a mediation should be the responsibility of the mediator unless the mediator is temporarily unavailable and the post is a flagrant violation of WP policy (e.g., vandalism). I have three questions:
- @Fkp: Would you be willing to refrain from removing others' posts?
- @LAz17: Would you be willing to reformulate your post so as to comment on content, not the contributor?
- @LAz17: As to your participation here, I note that you have not participated much in the current discussion on the article talk page. What is your reason for wanting to participate in the mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fkp, it is my view that removing posts in a mediation should be the responsibility of the mediator unless the mediator is temporarily unavailable and the post is a flagrant violation of WP policy (e.g., vandalism). I have three questions:
- Nuujin is indeed completely neutral in this dispute. The reason why Fkp and BoDu (who never-ever uses indent) find him "hostile" is the fact that any neutral observer will notice Fkp's whole argument looks as if the fellow is completely disregarding a metric ton of sources. The whole debate over on the talkpage is basically: 1) Fkp refuses to agree 2) people throw sources at him, 3) Fkp refuses to agree, 4) people throw more sources at him, 5) he refuses to agree, 6) editors repeat the sources, etc, etc. etc...
- Its a matter of national pride for Fkp and BoDu. This is not my opinion, it is perfectly obvious from the categorical, uncompromising position of these editors, as well as their simple refusal to accept sourced information. The users simply ignore any arguments and sources, because they can never ever agree to what they're saying. Hence this mediation: it was requested due to the fact that Fkp was alone on the talkpage opposed by practically every other involved editor (apart from BoDu, who simply repeats the same things over and over again). One of the most frustrating discussions I've had (and I've had my share :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do agree that it often doesn't serve our purpose to repeat things over and over. However, for that to happen, in my view, editors must listen to one another—and show that they have understood. One more thing: You have made some fairly personal remarks about Fkp and BoDu. Would you be able to focus on content, not the contributor in this mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like this discussion. Something that I want to add is that according to WP:NPOV, achieving neutrality has not so much to do with an individual's neutrality as that of a group of editors presenting different perspectives in such a way as to produce articles that are balanced, in line with sources on the subject. Such is not only WP policy, but also a desired outcome of mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Sunray, you´re right. I deeply apologise to you for having removed other users post.
- @Nuujinn, I don´t understand your question to me. Why are you intentionally turning my words around and talking about Sunray? I was clear, I object your participation because you insist in acting in some "phalse neutrality". You don´t wanting to understand this, and asking me something completely different makes me think that you desire to continue with your manipulative attitude. I´ll repeat, I object your participation.
- Regarding Laz17, I opose his participation because he clearly missed the major issues in discussion here, and the precisions about who defends what, being now a little bit late to cach up the 3 months of discussions in wich he was not present. I had invited him to participate about a week ago, and he rejected it. He bases his opinion on this issue having in mind his relationship and previous experience with some participants on other articles, but he clearly missed what is in question here and the discussion regarding this specifical article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding direktor and his remark on me, I can just say that the situation has been exactly the oposite, I had to repeat myself over and over again, but he intentionally refused to understand it, even doing all possible to sabotage the mediation. DIREKTOR, your sources don´t say what you say they do, you are manipulating and missinterpreting them, and there are other users that agree on this. You even used sources that say exactly the oposite that you used them for, and you were cought! You were the one that was intentionally disruptive refusing to understand this, so you would avoid an analisis to "your" sources. That is the reason why you avoided mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Sunray, I apologise for this last remark, but I commented on user because I was confronted with same attitude. I will avoid doing it from now on, but other users should too. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. After my first offer to withdraw, you said that the problem with me is that I claim to be neutral, but am not. Sunray said that was an interesting comment and the neutrality was not a prerequisite for participation in mediation. You asked if "phalse neutrality" (I assume you meant "false neutrality") was positive for the discussion. The you said, and I quote: 'I just think that everybody should say what defends without constantly attempting to bring your opinion to his side with some alledged neutrality. You are the mediator, and "we" are the participants, and if some participants don´t have this clear, I don´t see the benefit of having them on this discussion....' Since you were talking about me just prior to this, and I was at the time the only person you had said you were concerned about in terms of participation, I assume that I am the person you meant in your implication, and that you think I'm trying to sway Sunray somehow by claiming neutrality. Honestly, I think that accusation makes little sense as Sunray is a mediator, and as I understand it, his purpose here is to help us (or perhaps I should say "you all") reach consensus, not decide who's right or wrong, and mediation isn't binding. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think we all know who exactly is the mediator, and I was allways directing towards Sunray, so I really can´t see how could you be confused on that, or how could you missinterpret who is the mediator, and who are the participants. Beside an attempt that was made during the discussion by AlasdairGreen27 to make me beleave that you, Nuujinn, was the mediator (here [3]), I think that we all know clearly who the mediator is. I´m sorry, please Nuujinn don´t take this personally, but I also don´t understand this: you already said twice that you will withrow if anybody, including me, objects. I already objected twice, and you are, again, like with your alledged neutrality issue, saying one thing, doing another... FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, it honestly saddens me to see you act this way, but yes, consider me withdrawn from the mediation, after this refactoring you thoughts are clearly stated. Your canvassing efforts for this mediation sadden me as well, I'm trying to assume good faith, but you're making it very difficult to do so. Sunray, I wish you the best of luck with this one! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn: It makes more sense to me that you wait until others have had a chance to comment. We are only just beginning. Regarding most of the issues here, we will attempt to make decisions by consensus. On the question of participation, I will make the decision after hearing participants views. So far, in this discussion, I see no reason for you not to participate. But let's hold off making any snap decisions. Would you be willing to wait? Sunray (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my feeling is that if FkpCascais really opposes my participation, it would be difficult for me to be of benefit in the mediation. I'll be following the discussions regardless, but I'm certainly willing to hold off on a final decision for the time being. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn: It makes more sense to me that you wait until others have had a chance to comment. We are only just beginning. Regarding most of the issues here, we will attempt to make decisions by consensus. On the question of participation, I will make the decision after hearing participants views. So far, in this discussion, I see no reason for you not to participate. But let's hold off making any snap decisions. Would you be willing to wait? Sunray (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, it honestly saddens me to see you act this way, but yes, consider me withdrawn from the mediation, after this refactoring you thoughts are clearly stated. Your canvassing efforts for this mediation sadden me as well, I'm trying to assume good faith, but you're making it very difficult to do so. Sunray, I wish you the best of luck with this one! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think we all know who exactly is the mediator, and I was allways directing towards Sunray, so I really can´t see how could you be confused on that, or how could you missinterpret who is the mediator, and who are the participants. Beside an attempt that was made during the discussion by AlasdairGreen27 to make me beleave that you, Nuujinn, was the mediator (here [3]), I think that we all know clearly who the mediator is. I´m sorry, please Nuujinn don´t take this personally, but I also don´t understand this: you already said twice that you will withrow if anybody, including me, objects. I already objected twice, and you are, again, like with your alledged neutrality issue, saying one thing, doing another... FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- [quote]As to your participation here, I note that you have not participated much in the current discussion on the article talk page. What is your reason for wanting to participate in the mediation?[/quote] I have been involved in some similar issues in the past. It was precisely this issue actually. Direktor and I had two disputes - one was resolved, about the ethnic composition of the partizans - and because that was done I did not bother to go about resolving the second issue, that being this chetnik stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)).
- User:FkpCascais does like very much to remove posts he dislikes [2]. Welcome, LAzo. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
@Sunray, I apologise for my position on this, but I would just prefer to have the participants as concentrated and clear as possible in the concrete issues regarding this dispute. The fact that Nuujinn repeatedly stated his alledged neutrality (while clearly choosing sides) is somehow pretencious and offending regarding other participants. The final false acusation of canvassing also didn´t felt good. I´m not having any agenda, and I am open and clear about my points, the acusation of canvassing would curiously have more to do with someone dissimulately defending one POV while claiming neutrality. The reason behind my objection on Laz17 participation is already explained. Please feel free (Sunray) to tell me if I am wrong on this. Whatever is decided, I´ll withrow myself from some time to give the chance to other participants to express themselfs. FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see if others want to comment first. Sunray (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sunray, is it necessary to repeat all the facts from the sources here as well? Most of them are in the talkpage, but they're really just a "taster" of the huge amounts of materiel in the quoted publications. In any case it seems useful to mention that the I've provided links to the sources in the refs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you asking whether it is necessary to present a source here to support a point you are making? If so, I do think that it would be useful, as the discussion evolves, to support your points with specific references or diffs. However, we need to be as economical as possible. Does that answer your question? Sunray (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess what I'm asking is have you already familiarized yourself with some of the more significant (sourced) facts listed in the talkpage, or would you like a rundown? I'm just taking into consideration that this is a surprisingly frustrating, obscure, and at the same time complex area of history - which of course, is the root cause of the problems we often face on similar articles... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you asking whether it is necessary to present a source here to support a point you are making? If so, I do think that it would be useful, as the discussion evolves, to support your points with specific references or diffs. However, we need to be as economical as possible. Does that answer your question? Sunray (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sunray, is it necessary to repeat all the facts from the sources here as well? Most of them are in the talkpage, but they're really just a "taster" of the huge amounts of materiel in the quoted publications. In any case it seems useful to mention that the I've provided links to the sources in the refs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional participant(s)
On the question of participants, a concern about neutrality was expressed in the case of Nuujinn and a lack of involvement in discussions on the talk page in the case of LAz17. I have responded to the issue of neutrality by saying that I do not consider it as a prerequisite for participation in a mediation. In the case of LAz17, I do think that engagement on the talk page is a valid consideration for inclusion in a mediation. Therefore, I would be willing to include Nuujinn, but not LAz17 at this point. Sunray (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please Sunray, I never said neutrality was a problem. I´m saying exactly the oposite, no one is neutral, and nobody should pretentiously claim it for himself, and it´s negative to have people claiming neutrality while campaigning for one side. That is unfair. Participants should just say what they think, and not comment on their own neutrality about the issue... What Nuujinn does, is saying in other words: "In my own neutral objective opinion: He´s guilty! I must be right, you know, because I dont have a dog in this race..." I´ll repeat myself, that´s pretencious and offensive, and I didn´t noteced his will in changing on this. Even with his "alledged" withrowing, saying one thing, doing another... and after I objected (I had to repeat my objection), he attacked me. When I say something, I do it, and I don´t attack others because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, I honestly don't care whether Draza collaborated or not, I just want to follow the sources, but I hear what you are saying, and I concede your point that it might seem pretentious. I'll stop making a claim for neutrality since it bothers you so. As for personal attacks or accusations, everyone's record speaks for itself.
- Sunray asked me to reconsider withdrawing, so I have not made a final decision about participating yet. People do sometimes change their minds, however, so I would ask that you assume good faith on my part. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- I´m just being honest about what I think. I´m just one of the participants, so obviously it is not up to me to decide. But, my position stands, and one of the reasons could be that you still didn´t understood that your "neutrality claim" is incorrect, but you say that you just wan´t say it because it "bothers me". Even Sunray, as mediator, acknolledged that we all have biases. I still think that you didn´t get the point... FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud, Nuujin you're certainly not leaving... your incredible ability to remain calm in the face of continued baseless disagreement is not only necessary here, but should probably be isolated from your genome and obligatorily spliced into the chromosomes of every future Wikipedia user. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment. I'm certainly not going to abandon the article, and I've not participated in a formal mediation before, but it seems to me that success will depend on all parties being willing to work together. I am not convinced that my participation is critical to this mediation, and I have complete faith in Sunray's ability to handle this with or without me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sun, you state that one does not have to have be on the talk page to be included, and then you exclude me anyways. Do bother to look at some of my contributions from june 2009 - [4] you can clearly see that I have been quite involved on this - on the chetniks, draza mihajlovic, and yugoslav front topics. This issue overlaps all three of these, not just the DM page. The only reason why not to include me is because FKP is not happy because I disagree with him. He is pissed off with anyone who disagrees with him on this issue. He explicitly told me to stay out of this on my talk page. What is he afraid of, that his pOV will not prevail? (LAz17 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).
- @Laz: ..."pissed off"... No comments...
- @direktpor: "baseless"? Please speak for yourself and don´t make provocative comments on my decisions when they are not related to you.
- @Nuujinn: please stop questioning Sunray´s ability to handle this without your "help". FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sun, you state that one does not have to have be on the talk page to be included, and then you exclude me anyways. Do bother to look at some of my contributions from june 2009 - [4] you can clearly see that I have been quite involved on this - on the chetniks, draza mihajlovic, and yugoslav front topics. This issue overlaps all three of these, not just the DM page. The only reason why not to include me is because FKP is not happy because I disagree with him. He is pissed off with anyone who disagrees with him on this issue. He explicitly told me to stay out of this on my talk page. What is he afraid of, that his pOV will not prevail? (LAz17 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)).
Well, Nuujinn, you did gave signs of that in previous comments, but this last sentence is just another that talks on that issue, and nobody even mentioned it, unless you. There is no reason to comment something unless you think that there may be some reason. Nobody ever had any doubts on Sunray´s role here, but you comment the issue that your abscence may put (or not) in danger the mediation, and you still continue with your "mediator" attitude. Sorry, you are not the mediator, but it is Sunray, and nobody is questioning that, only you keep mentioning it. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- You can't be "neutral" unless you agree with FkpCascais... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, frankly I'm baffled by your interpretation of my statements. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the above discussion: One more time: comment on content, not the contributor. Two further points:
- I have indicated that I am willing to include Nuujinn. I now consider that matter closed.
- LAz17 points out that he has been involved with the article despite not having been active in the recent discussions on the talk page. We have heard from Fkp on this. Does anyone else have a comment on including LAz?
We will be moving forward on this mediation directly, so if anyone has comments, would they be able to make them now. Sunray (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the newest reason why Laz shouldn´t participate: [5]. I doubt that his kind of attitude and language could be usefull here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I think the more eyes on a topic the better, and he does have a history with this article, so if LAz17 is interested in participating, I think it would be a benefit to the discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
it seems that FkpCascals and LAz17 are in conflict and the dispute includes issues related to Draza Mihajlovic. That likely indicates that LAz should be included in the mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am NOT in conflict with Laz, I am in conflict with his language and attitude... And Sunray, I don´t understand why we lost time on this objections in first place, if you are going to ignore them now? Having a participant, that didn´t even participate on the discussion, that didn´t even bothered to read the discussion, and that uses the F word and many others constantly... Also, his comment about Mihailovic being a "a known criminal who buthered thousands of innocent civilians based on ethnic/religious identification alone" really shows his objectivity on the issue, or is it the POV you all wanna have wining here, at the end? Well, I don´t know what else should some user do to be considered not welcomed, but, you decide... Anyway, how many active participants are here? 6 to 1? That is very fair... But please, don´t do ME a favor...FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- A person's past behaviour is rarely an issue for a mediation. What is important is their level of commitment to the mediation. Would you be willing to focus on the content issues introduced in the next section now? Sunray (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Past? Do you really consider beneficial to have a user that just yesterday (past, in your words) told me to "Fuck off" and has been very upseting with his behavior to a number of other users on a different discussion? It also depends if he is going to be blocked... FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh!, but listen, better thinking, let him participate! He would be very usefull, and I bet it is going to be very pleasent to have him here (irony). After all, it is not my credibility that is in stake here... He´s welcome! In Nujinn´s words, with same exact meaning: "I wish you luck on this one, Sunray". FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Past? Do you really consider beneficial to have a user that just yesterday (past, in your words) told me to "Fuck off" and has been very upseting with his behavior to a number of other users on a different discussion? It also depends if he is going to be blocked... FkpCascais (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- A person's past behaviour is rarely an issue for a mediation. What is important is their level of commitment to the mediation. Would you be willing to focus on the content issues introduced in the next section now? Sunray (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also Sunray, when I responded to direktor for unfairly having commented on me, I got from you an angry bold answer about not commenting on other users, but when direktor makes a clear unnecessary provocation, your response is: "with respect...one more time...". FkpCascais (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Each participant is responsible for their own behaviour. I will comment (and have done so) when I think it is necessary but I do not intend to play the role of arbiter nor to get drawn into game-playing between participants. I have warned two individuals and given a general warning about personal attacks. That is enough, I hope. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sun, perhaps it is better that I stay out, as fkp truly hates me. At any rate, if you want me to participate later feel free to call me. Lastly, there is a good book, The Serbs, by Tim Judah... it is quite a famous book too. If you want I could pick out some stuff that relates to this topic out of that book. Best Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)).
Mihailović’s role with respect to the Axis and Allies
I would suggest that we now do some work. This work I would call collaborative editing. Hopefully, though, it will result in consensus. I suggest that participants begin by working out a paragraph that sumarizes Mihailović’s role vis a vis the Axis and Allied powers. I further suggest that participants back their views with sources. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal 1
Hi. I haven't been looking at the mediation page for some time (and don't necessarily intend to spend much time here) but I have just begun rewriting the article completely (and plan to also rewrite Chetniks, and possibly Yugoslav Front, Yugoslavia and the Allies, and several related battles). I don't expect to be done completely with Mihailovic (not to mention the other articles) before several days, or possibly next week. I've started by the introduction, which was problematic to say the least (not that it's perfect now, but that's a start IMHO). Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would really appreciate if Direktor wouldn't do this and let me finish working on this article. I am really trying to put it back into shape and I'd like my "sweat of the brow" to be respected. The mediation is supposed to include providing sources, and this is precisely what I'm doing. I'd like everyone to be civil and try to work honestly on this complicated issue instead of "rollbacking" what they don't like. The state of the article and the use of the sources can be discussed in the meantime or afterwards, but each participant's work must be respected IMHO. Thanks Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Jean-Jacques, thank you for your proposed changes to the article [6]. I guess I wasn't clear enough about the process for discussing changes to the article. I meant that we should discuss the changes here and work on consensus before making changes to the article. In my experience, that is the only way to bring order to the process. Often an article is protected during a mediation, however, I had thought that wouldn't be necessary because of the level of commitment you all have to solving the dispute. Nevertheless, I assume that you made the changes in good faith.
Would participants be able to look at the changes Jean-Jacques is proposing? Perhaps someone would be willing to lead the discussion. I would suggest that you proceed paragraph by paragraph. It also might make sense to discuss the lead last (since that is an overview of the whole article). However, it is best that participants decide how they want to proceed. I will be here to facilitate the process, as needed. Sunray (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- If we look to the sources, the Jean-Jacques version is far more precise towards what the sources say. FkpCascais (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- You could obviously revert direktors edits, too, because they were the ones that triggered this mediation in first place... This way, we have one sided version, as the current one. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is usual practice to leave the article at the version in place when the mediation begins. Participants then reach consensus on changes. Are you indicating that you are in agreement with Jean-Jacques changes? Sunray (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It is a valid version. FkpCascais (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- @"You could obviously revert direktors edits, too, because they were the ones that triggered this mediation in first place."
- (Personal attack removed)I think its important to establish that the conflict did not start with me pushing any disputed edits. Rather, I'm the guy who's disputing the edits of User:FkpCascais which were first introduced on 13 February 2010 (and were later expanded during the next few days).
- Yes. It is a valid version. FkpCascais (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is usual practice to leave the article at the version in place when the mediation begins. Participants then reach consensus on changes. Are you indicating that you are in agreement with Jean-Jacques changes? Sunray (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- As for the unilateral undiscussed "POV-ization" of the entire article on the part of User:Jean-Jacques Georges, I think it goes without saying that such massive edits should not be pushed during the mediation, even if they were not disputed - and they certainly are. His version is little short of a romaticized ballad to this person and virtually excludes any and all "negative" pieces of information about this person - whole paragraphs, sections, and sources were erased from the article. There's really no question on my part concerning the acceptability of Jean's version.
- Sunray, there's only one major issue here: the inclusion of the word "collaboration" in the lead. I.e. whether this person collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia during World War II. We are talking about the commander-in-chief of, in the words of German intelligence, "the most useful" collaborating force in Yugoslavia. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will be frank: the matter is rather straightforward, FkpCascais merely needs someone "of authority" to tell him to adhere to presented sources and to cease removing them from the article. He claims everybody is "misrepresenting" the sources. Are we?
Just a question: Are these the BEST sources you have to impose the "collaboration"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are no "best sources" or "worse sources", they're all top quality, as it were, and simply state the obvious. If you're asking whether I'm done, I think I'll just sit back and be shocked for a while that you still ask something like that after months of reading (or should I say ignoring) sources that were thrown at you by the bushel-full.
- Relax and let me at least finish my post before you start claiming this too "does not count" for some strange reason you think of. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe you should bring some better ones, because the ones talking about some possibilities in the future ("...could..."), or the ones that speak about some unknown "trustworthy source" are just far from accpted facts... Please, continue. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) FkpCascais (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it useful to mention at this juncture that User:FkpCascais has not provided any sources whatsoever, during the course of this entire months-long discussion - i.e. there are no opposing sources as yet presented. Of course, the disqualification of the above quote is utterly baseless. ("Mihailović has ordered his commanders to co-operate with Germans." - past tense, Fkp; "The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers" - this is also past tense. That's what I mean when I say "strange excuses"...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- We have enough sources. And you just seem to want to avoid the analisis to the ones you present, so we should, for some strange reason, asume that your interpretation of them is right... Is not right, and lets analise them. Btw, I think that those were your best sources(Personal attack removed)
- Btw, as you said, it really needs some "authority", (Personal attack removed) Facts please. FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fkp, please leave me alone to post the sources? (Personal attack removed). I'll be moving them to a seperate subsection to order them neatly. Please refrain from commenting on them there.
- I already said that you should list all your sources, several times. I even said now "please continue", or should I say, "be my guest". But, shouldn´t you provide the link for them, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this all? You had some others, that were even better for making MY point, aren´t you gonna bring them, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what "even better" sources you're talking about, as I kept telling you for months - they're all in the article anyway: you can read most of them. I'm focusing on the OKW reports right now, I'll be back with more from there. If necessary I'll even write down the relevant excerpts from the online books. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It´s OK to know that we are gonna analise the ones from the text, as well. You know, it is not fair that you repeat the expresion "for months", (Personal attack removed). Anyway, have fun! FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sources
These are direct quotes from primary sources published in the listed secondary source:
The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger.
— General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb (Source: Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421)
According to a trustworthy source, Mihailović has ordered his commanders to co-operate with Germans. He himself can not step forward in such a fashion because of the impact such move could have on the disposition of the populace.
— Report to the OKW (German High Command) of 23 November 1943 (translated), Frhr. Maximilian von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall; Commander, Army Group F (Balkans) (Source: Janusz Piekalkiewicz, Krieg auf dem Balkan 1940-1945; München - Gütersloh o. J.)
As in fall of 1943 Tito´s movement grew stronger,supported by Russian and English help and as Mihailović movement was being pushed into Serbia (and aditionaly weakend by non-existence of Italian support), Mihailović realized that the time has come to re-examine his attitude to the Germans. As the German leadership in the same time was striving to unite and activate all of the anti-communist forces in the South-east (for which a Sp. envoy for South-east, Dr. Neubacher, has been appointed in October 1943),the contacts were made and in the next two months a series of cease-fire agreements was made between German military posts and Mihailović's commanders. He refrained from personal involvement, mostly because he didn't want to lose the Anglo-American arms shipments, which he still received, no matter how smaller than before. Anyway the actions by Mihailović's organisation against the Germans stopped. This lead to a marked improvement of situation.
— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, p.632-732
On August 17th (OB message of August 20th) Nedić [Prime Minister of the Serbian collaborationist state, "Nedić's Serbia"] offered [the Germans] the unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom. He emphasized that he was officially speaking for Mihailović too, after the meeting they had. He asked for a immediate shipment of 3 million small-arms rounds and a approval for creating of a 50,000 strong Serbian army made mostly of Mihailovic's units. OB South-east,after consulting with Mil. Bef. Suedsot, quickly reached a conclusion that a turning down this offer meant antagonising all of the Serbs,new Tito's succeses, cuting all the comunications (especially to Greece) and to the stopping of economical exploitation.
— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b, 7/I, p.706
Phew, I'm tired :P. Its midnight, be back tomorrow as soon as I'm done at the hospital. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of some sources claiming collaboration, please see:
- pages 40 of Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History By Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman: "By late 1941, Mihailovic Chetniks effectively had abadoned resistance to the Axis in favor of the struggle against Tito's Partisan, and thereafter maintained a pattern of collaboration with both Germans and Italians against the Partisans, notwithstanding sporadic acts of anti-Axis sabotage."
- page 231 of The Chetniks: war and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 By Jozo Tomasevich: "...from the end of December 1942 on, the British government, both indirectly through the Yugoslave government-in-exile and directly through its own missions with Mihailovic, made strenuous and sustained efforts to persuade Mihailovic to stop collaborating with the enemy and fighting the Partisans, and to start fighting the Axis forces, but in vain."
- page 148 of The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005 By Sabrina P. Ramet: "Mihailovic himself was drawn into this collaborative web, and by late August, he was sanctioning use of his units in an anti-Partisan campaign with Ustasa and Italian troops."
- FWIW. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, some Axis officials considered that Mihailovic's men did provide help. But several factors must be taken into account : while Mihailovic was nominal leader of the Chetniks (with the exception of Pecanac's), he had de facto little control on the whole movement. No definitive and reliable proof has been given of his direct and willing collaboration with the Axis, though he did take advantage of the collaboration with the Italians. If individual Chetnik leaders came and proposed their help to Germans and/or Italians, it was natural for the latter to consider that "Mihailovic's men" were collaborating with them, even when Mihailovic himself was not directly concerned. Second, Mihailovic was at first hailed as a resistance hero by the Allies, and he did start an underground movement (more an intelligence movement than an actual resistance movement, at first) against the Germans, who never stopped wanting his head. So presenting him first and foremost as a collaborator is not accurate. That, afterwards, the Allies were disappointed in Mihailovic's performance as a military leader - and rightfully so, IMHO - and by the collaboration of many Chetnik groups must not obfuscate the fact that, at least until early 1944, he was quite officially an Allied military contributor. Then again, it must be stressed that the German command was more than reluctant to accept the Italians' collaboration with the Chetniks - Hitler personally wrote to Mussolini about it - and never stopped considering them enemies who had to be disarmed and disbanded after the Partisans, who were gradually considered the main threat. The previous version of the article - that is, before I started rewriting it, which is far from finished - was woefully lacking in chronological events, which are IMHO indispensable to understand what happened to this guy. Please consider that I'm trying to provide sources for all of the events that I'm presently including. Let me stress - again - the fact that I'm far from considering Mihailovic a hero. While he must be commended for going underground against the Axis, he was an complete failure as a resistance leader, pursued a strategy which was ill-conceived an too static, and was the nominal leader of a sorry bunch of nationalist butchers who did commit acts of ethnic cleansing. He was, however, considered a hero by a good deal of the Serbian population, which was probably unaware of his shortcomings and failures as a leader. That being said, the article must present all the aspects of the character instead of being ridiculously one-sided like it used to be. Regarding the sources, I may add that "Serbia's secret war" is dubious, since its author is no historian. The sources must be used fairly, not just using selected quotes or little bits randomly picked on google books. I have noticed that some books (like David Martin's for example) were used to support some claims while they precisely claim the opposite, and that some (Walter Roberts' book, which I have read cover to cover) were only used selectively. I trust that we can all work together on this like intelligent people rather than playing at edit warring like idiots. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- User:Jean-Jacques Georges, we are not talking about the "opinions" or "considerations" of German offcials, but about the solid facts available to us from German military reports and official documents. These are, without a shadow of a doubt, the best (and most unbiased) primary sources on World War II Yugoslavia available. You'll also notice that the quoted sources specifically refer to Mihailović, the commander of the Chetnik movement. Frankly, I do not see the point of the above post. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- The "solid facts" are also that said Axis officials had no contact with Mihailovic himself. There were indeed several attempts to reach a modus vivendi with Mihailovic, including near the end of the conflict and after the Soviet attack, but they were vetoed, including by Hitler himself. Another "solid fact" is that the British proposed to evacuate Mihailovic when it became clear that the battle was lost for him, and that was way after they had reliable information about the collaboration of part of the Chetniks. Why the hell would they have done this if Mihailovic had been, first, foremost and only, an Axis supporter ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that selecting convenient quotes and presenting them in pretty little boxes, and carefully choosing citations from google books without necessarily making the effort to actually read the books (with the risk of having some authors say the opposite of what they actually mean) is not the right method to improve this article. If we want to make a decent job, we have to work with, at our sides, several good books which we have read entirely. Plus, it is necessary to make a complete and chronological synthesis, backed with sources, of what the article's subject did or is said to have done. The article is woefully lacking on that aspect, while it is the only way to achieve anything remotely approaching a satisfactory article. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Beginning work per Sunray's suggestion
I'll try to be brief. Sunray's suggestion is that we start with a summary of Mihailović’s role vis a vis the Axis and Allied powers. From what I've read so far, in both discussions and in the various sources, it seems that part of the problem we're having stems from the fact that his role changed throughout the war. What I would suggest is that we first work out a paragraph covering the first half of 1941 and hash that out, and then proceed in six month increments, so as to keep the discussion manageable. Below see a first draft, incorporating elements from both JJG's and DIR's versions of that time period (I hope you two do not mind my use of nicknames).
I want to be absolutely clear on one thing--I am not familiar with all of the sources used in this draft, so I am not making any claims for or against inclusion of any particular source at this time. In putting forth this draft at this moment, I am acting solely as a copy editor, hoping to provide a starting point for useful discussion. If in following the discussion, I come to find I disagree with the use, interpretation, weight, or any other aspect of a source, I'll voice that concern at that time.
I would also suggest that as a first step everyone please focus on what is wrong or incorrect with this draft, so that we first eliminate anything incorrect information, or any errors of omission I have committed in merging the two versions. We can certainly talk about additions later, but in general I find that editing out information to a lean outline first helps prepare a good solid frame for later additions. I have no doubt there are omissions at this point. I also recognize that the prose is very rough, but that should be the last step, I think, in the process. Also, do not fear for my safety, as I have a pillow on the floor behind me in case everyone agrees to this approach.
- (Moved to #Draft 01-06 1941 below, so we can edit in place to conserve space) --Nuujinn (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is useful. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is indeed useful, IMO. I would like to complement the following participants for their recent work:
- Jean-Jacques for taking some initiative in presenting a re-write of parts of the article
- DIREKTOR for providing useful sources
- Nuujinn for taking the lead in producing a draft on the collaboration theme.
- A good day's work. I am hoping this continues and that other participants will join in to do some of the lifting in days to come. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
May I add something ? If it is "usual practice to leave the article at the version in place when the mediation begins", then I'm against the idea of a mediation, which would be a complete waste of time. I only accepted the idea of mediation as a little favor to FkpCascais and was never really interested in it in the first place. No offense meant to anyone, but I am completely opposed to leaving the utterly biased and incomplete version in place. Since we are all civilized people, I think we can all discuss on the article's talk page while working and not waste our time on a formal "mediation" when the talk page can do the same thing. If this "mediation" means hampering a rewrite, then I'd prefer it to be abandoned. Sorry if this may seem offensive to Sunray, which is certainly not my intention, but I think this article needs a major rewrite as soon as possible, and it would be a waste of time if it couldn't be done while we discuss here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Jean-Jacques Georges, I would suggest that the ultimate purpose of mediation is to do a complete rewrite of the article, and we'd all be well served if you participated in that process. I admire your diligence, and I think in your recent revisions there is much useful text. But the reason we got here in the first place is because we were unable to come to consensus using the regular edit and discussion process. I ask that you please give the mediation process a chance. If nothing else, please review my draft above for errors, I've incorporated some of your text above and I'd like to make sure I've gotten it right. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If the mediation process is going to make me waste time which could be used working on the article, I'm not interested in it at all. I think the discussion can take place on the article's talk page anyway, if we all agree to work like civilized people. Please take note that I plan to rewrite (or, if I may be more modest, to improve) Chetniks, Yugoslav Front, Yugoslavia and the Allies, etc. But I'd like Direktor to be civil, assume good faith and not to start edit warring. Beware of WP:OWN.
- Anyway, I'll take a look at your draft so we can do some cooperative work. But I've far from finished working on the Mihailovic article, so it might be more useful for me to finish it first so you can incorporate my edits later into yet another draft. If you agree on that, I promise to work on it as fast as I can. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it should be, as mediator, Sunray's call. But no, if it were up to me I would not agree to that at this point, since we have failed as a group for months now to work as civilized people. That being said, I would certainly endorse you creating an entire article draft and putting that up here as a separate section, and I would certainly pull copy edit material from that draft in draft we're working here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I've said on the article talk page, in many mediations, articles are protected to prevent edit waring by participants or major edits of the text during a mediation. I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary in this case, but unless editors cease making changes to the article I can see no other way. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If Jean-Jacques Georges feels time limitations, would it be ok for them to write their complete draft and leave it here as a separate section for us to consult, so as to be able to take into account Jean-Jacques Georges's perspective? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be fine. JJ could put up a sandboxed version with his changes if he likes.
- JJ: Would you be able to let me know if you want me to set up a subpage of this page or do it on your own subpage? Sunray (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Making a draft on my own subpage would be a good compromise. This way I'd be able to work properly without interferences. I'll try to work on it this week-end or on monday. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good. And if you have a link to that from this page, others will be able to participate and comment. I think it is important to bear in mind that the goal of this mediation is for participants to reach consensus on the issues. Meanwhile I will rollback the article to the last stable version before the mediation began. Thanks for your cooperation. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I may add that Direktor's attitude has not put me in good spirits. No one likes to be called a liar, I guess. Apologies would be very welcome, so I assume that he did not mean to actually offend me. However, I have not interest in conflicts with anyone.
- Anyway, I realize that making a whole draft and submitting it completely is the best way to work on this subject (as well as on "Chetniks", "Yugoslav front", et. al.). If I submit an entire article instead of correcting the current versions little bit by little bit, my edits will make far more sense and I will not risk to be accused of any offenses against neutrality.
- I won't have the time to work on it this week-end but I hope to get back to it monday and/or tuesday and, hopefully, to finish by the end of next week a complete draft with a beginning, a middle, and an end.
- But in the meantime, it is absolutely necessary to put some sort of "neutrality dispute" template on the pathetically biased article. It is the only sensible thing to do, since the disputed version is a real shame to wikipedia. Cheers.
- EDIT : just saw the "mediation" template. That may be enough since it already suggests that the article has issues. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good. And if you have a link to that from this page, others will be able to participate and comment. I think it is important to bear in mind that the goal of this mediation is for participants to reach consensus on the issues. Meanwhile I will rollback the article to the last stable version before the mediation began. Thanks for your cooperation. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Making a draft on my own subpage would be a good compromise. This way I'd be able to work properly without interferences. I'll try to work on it this week-end or on monday. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- If Jean-Jacques Georges feels time limitations, would it be ok for them to write their complete draft and leave it here as a separate section for us to consult, so as to be able to take into account Jean-Jacques Georges's perspective? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I've said on the article talk page, in many mediations, articles are protected to prevent edit waring by participants or major edits of the text during a mediation. I had hoped that wouldn't be necessary in this case, but unless editors cease making changes to the article I can see no other way. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the draft at User:Jean-Jacques Georges/drafts/Mihailovic. I'll try to get back to work on it by tomorrow and - hopefully, god willing and time permitting - finish by the end of the week something vaguely resembling an acceptable article. , Please take note that I'd prefer not having people touch the draft itself, not because I'm an egomaniac, but simply because it would confuse me. However, any comments, suggestions and factual corrections will be welcome on the draft's talk page. Since English is not my first language, grammar and syntax corrections are also very welcome. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Draft 01-06 1941
I moved this to it's own section so we could edit it in place, please discuss changes in the other sections. Also, I put in a references tag to ease checking sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad start. It should also mention the fact that Mihailovic's idea was also to wait for and Allied landing, and organize in the meantime a guerilla organization that would join the fight against the Axis upon said landing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- After the Yugoslav defeat by Germany in April of 1941, a small group of officers and soldiers led by Mihailović escaped in hope of joining Yugoslav army units fighting in the mountains. Mihailović called this small group the "Command of Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army"[1]. After arriving at Ravna Gora, Serbia on May 8, 1941, he discovered his group of seven officers and twenty four non-commissioned officers and soldiers were the sole remnants of Yugoslav army in the area.[2] Mihailović planned to establish an underground intelligence movement and contact the Allies.[3], and gathered men and weapons in anticipation of supporting Allied efforts once they arrived in the Balkans. Ill equipped, his men did not have the resources to protect Serbian civilians against German reprisals[4] (such as more than 3,000 killed in Kraljevo and Kragujevac), and Mihailović generally discouraged open conflict against Axis forces, favoring actions such as sabotage that could not easily be traced.[5]
- In June 1941, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans began active resistance against the Germans. Tito favored full resistance, striking at the Germans and Italians with full force, in contrast to Mihailović's strategy designed to "save his country with as few casualties as possible". Lieutenant Colonel Živan L. Knežević, one of Mihailović's senior advisers and chief of the military cabinet of the royalist government stated: "[Mihailović] thought that the [partisan] uprising was premature and that, without any gain in prospect, it would have brought disproportionately great sacrifices. He was not able to convince the Partisans that an open fight could have only one result, namely, the annihilation of the population."[6]
Comments on Draft 01-06 1941
- If you want to go into such detail (unnecessary in this article I think) you will need to give full coverage to the meeting at Divci, in the tavern opposite the railway station, 11 November 1941, at which Mihailović offered full collaboration to the Germans in return for extensive supplies of arms and munitions with which to fight the Partisans. The Germans rejected Mihailović's proposals, as they felt he was untrustworthy. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that such detail is unnecessary, and I work to pare it down as we go. That is one reason why I am asking first if anyone sees anything in the draft that is incorrect, can you see anything that is poorly sourced or factually incorrect in the current draft? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alasdair, the Partizan offered the exact same thing, to side with the germans against the chetniks. You forgot that I suppose? (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).
- LAz17, glad to see that you're participating. I would suggest that while it may be true that the partisans (I honestly don't know one way or the other), that really doesn't have bearing here, at least so far. Do either you or AlasdairGreen see anything poorly sourced or factually incorrect in the current draft? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alasdair, the Partizan offered the exact same thing, to side with the germans against the chetniks. You forgot that I suppose? (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).
- I tend to agree that such detail is unnecessary, and I work to pare it down as we go. That is one reason why I am asking first if anyone sees anything in the draft that is incorrect, can you see anything that is poorly sourced or factually incorrect in the current draft? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- 'Revised Draft--I just trimmed the text, collapsed paragraphs 1 and 2, trimmed the quotes, and tried to address Jean-Jacques Georges's suggestion. I _think_ I've retained the more meaningful elements, and cleaned the prose a bit, but if anyone thinks it is not better, please feel free to revert, or better, edit it. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK. Better. FkpCascais (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Draft 07-12 1941
Here's rough draft based on the article as it stands with material from JJG's version, and major copy edits. Please make comments below in the comments section--I'm trying to keep the various bits in a format that can be easily incorporated later. This draft is pretty rough, feel free to clean it up. I think it's also too long, so I'll come back to it and trim it down in a few days if no one beats me to it.
- By July, Axis occupation forces were met by armed resistance supported by the Partisans, and during the summer months Partisan and Chetnik forces often cooperated in operations.[7] As a result of the increase resistance, the Germans diverted troops in preparation for their first major offensive against the Partisans which began on September 29th. In an attempt to coordinate efforts between the Partisans and Chetniks, Tito and Mihailović met twice, on September 9th and October 25th, but they found consensus only on secondary issues:[8][9] They represented groups in diametric opposition to one another and between which conflict was inevitable.[10] Each wanted the other to subordinate their forces under a common command, but neither was willing to give up leadership of the whole.[11] Further straining the relationship was the British recognition of Mihailović as the official leader of the resistance in Yugoslavia that fall, which meant that the Partisans would receive no aid from the British.[12][13]
- The day after their failed meeting in October, two of Mihailović's aides, Colonel Pantic and Captain Mitrovic, contacted a german intelligence officer claiming that Mihailović would put his forces at the disposal of the Germans for the purpose of eliminating the communist resistance in exchange for arms. The Germans requested a meeting with Mihailović.[14] A few days later, on November 1, the Chetniks attacked the Partisans' headquarters at Užice, but were repelled by the Partisans.[15] On November 11, a meeting took place between Mihailović and an Abwehr official, Lt. Colonel Kogard, at which Mihailović offered to cease activities against the Germans in exchange for supplies they could use to fight the partisans. The Germans did not accept his offer, and instead demanded surrender of the Chetniks.[16][17] After the failed negotiations, an attempt was made by the Germans to arrest Mihailović.[18] Mihailović's negotiations with the Germans were carefully kept secret from the Yugoslav government-in-exile, as well as from the British and their representative Captain T.J. Hudson.[19]
- Meanwhile, the Partisans mounted a successful counterattack against the Chetniks, and by mid November they had surrounded the Chetnik headquarters in Ravna Gora, but ceased operations for fear of disrupting British and Soviet relations. Also, The British put pressure on the Chetniks to consolidate efforts with the Partisan against the approaching German, but meetings between the two groups failed as before to reach any substantial agreement.[20] On November 25, the final phase of the German offensive against Chetniks and Partisans began. Tito and Mihailović had one last phone conversation: Tito announced that he would defend his positions, while Mihailović said that he would disperse.[21][22] The remnants of his Chetniks retreated to the hills of Ravna Gora, and Mihailović barely escaped capture when German forces overran his headquarters in early December.[23] On December 10, a bounty was put on his head.[24]
Comments on Draft 07-12 1941
- I've trimmed the draft a bit, and consolidated 2 paragraphs. Please check the work to make sure there's nothing factually incorrect or if any of the text causes you concern. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Notes and References for Drafts
Please keep this section clear of comments, it's just a holding point for the notes and references for the various drafts to ease edits and verification of references. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Pavlowitch, p. 54
- ^ Freeman, p. 123
- ^ Pavlowitch, p. 54
- ^ Pavlowitch, p. 63
- ^ Freeman, pp. 124-26
- ^ Freeman, pp. 125-26
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 134-135
- ^ Pavlowitch, pp. 62-64
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 140
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 153-154
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 148
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 152-153
- ^ Hart, Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941 - 1945
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, pp. 148-149
- ^ Roberts pp. 34-35
- ^ Miljuš p. 149
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 149
- ^ Pavlowitch, pp. 65-66
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 150
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 151
- ^ Pavlowitch, p. 63
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 151
- ^ Tomasevich, 1975, p. 155
- ^ Pavlowitch, pp. 65-66
References
Dr Stephen A Hart (2009-11-05). "Partisans: War in the Balkans 1941 - 1945". BBC. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
Freeman, Gregory (2007). The Forgotten 500: the untold story of the men who risked all for the greatest rescue mission of World War II. New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-22495-8.
Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2007). Hitler's new disorder : the Second World War in Yugoslavia. Columbia University Press. {{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |locaton=
ignored (help)
Miljuš, Branko (1982). La Révolution yougoslave. L'Âge d'homme.
Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). The Chetniks: war and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945. Stanford University Press.
Roberts, Walter R. Tito, Mihailović and the Allies 1941-1945. Rutgers University Press.
Tomasevich a reliable source?
I just have to make this question. FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- There has been a fair amount of discussion of this on the article talk page. The gist of it seems to be that he is a respected academic who has written a definitive work about Yugoslavia during WWII. I'm not aware of anyone challenging his objectivity on the grounds that he was of Croatian origin.
- Regarding the page numbers, I'm using a combination of citations and wikilinks, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references for a reference. This method means using a Notes section to link the text to a short reference, including the page number, and a References section with the bibliographical data. It is non-intuative in that the Notes section has the reflist, and the References section has a set of cite templates, but it has the advantage that you can put the page numbers in the reference tags in the article body and name the reference, so you don't have to list the book multiple times. Let me know how unclear that all is, but if you look at the Notes and references above, you see the page numbers in the notes subsection, which link to the books listed in the references section.
- Regard Tomasevich and his use of the term collaborator in direct connection with Mihailovic, I have a limited view access via Google books, but see pages 219, 317 (the strongest statement in this work I've found characterizing Mihailović directly as a collaborator: "...the Germans were suspicious of Mihailović and his Chetniks despite their occasional local collaboration") and pages 336-337. Pages 321-322 have a good discussion of the complex relationship as well. I can provide quotes if you or anyone else cannot get to them, and I'm pretty sure our library has the book in print. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The way forward
Listen, honestly, I´m not sure I have the desire to participate any more. There is nice weather where I live, I have my work, I´m also furthering my knolledge in other areas, so I don´t understand the point of making myself a fool around here. I am completely missunderstood here: I don´t defend Mihailovic, I am not his fan, neither a Chetnik one,(Personal remarks removed)
Having in mind that Mihailovic doesn´t really have nobody defending him (no real fan), and at least 3 feroutious oponents, together with a mediator that didn´t made even ONE decition in his favour (but all against), how is possible to expect a "fair trial" anyway?
As a born Serb, I do have a desire to have the related history written in a unbiased way, and much of this articles are completely biased, that is clear to the birds singing on the three of my garden. But, if you all want to have them that way, that is up to you, or even better, let LAz17 re-write them all! Perhaps is my openess that were perjuditial to my relationship with all you, maybe my person was condemned by all you, since the moment I decided to opose to this biased version? Maybe my contributions are perjuditial to the ones I alledgedly defend?
Please go on, I´ll need some time to think on this... FkpCascais (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Draža Mihailović/Britannica and Talk:Draža Mihailović/Mediation Request Here I explained all. FkpCascais (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- By all means take a break. When you have rested and, perhaps, gained some new perspective, you will be welcome back. Your perspective is valuable. Do please keep in mind though that there is no need to make personal remarks. Not ever. It undermines the possibility of working together. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As I said in the section above, I've moved the draft and will work on it the best I can this week, and possibly next week if I'm not finished. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you don't just work on it here. Would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll "work on it here" in the sense that I appreciate comments and suggestions. But since the draft is bound to be somewhat complex and take several days at best, I'd like to be the only person writing it, otherwise it will just be confusing to me. You are free to copy it here while it's in progress, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I for one would certainly appreciate the eyes of editors with more knowledge of the topic than I have, and obviously working together on the article will make consensus easier to achieve. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Jean-Jacques Georges, please post a link when you get your draft started and I'll take a look. The thing is, we have a version up in mainspace that I think it is safe to say DIREKTOR supports, but with which you have some significant issues. You're going to work on a draft that will be your version. I've tried to bring material from your work in progress made recently, and from the current version in mainspace into the version started above, but there has been negliable feedback from other editors on what I've done thus far. So I guess I'll just pose the question, what does everyone involved in this process want to do at this point? I'm willing to continue on the path I'm on if it will help, but there are plenty of fish to fry out there, and if no one is going to participate in the mediation process, I'm not sure there's any point. But I also feel very strongly that the only to move forward constructively is to work together on the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello all, sorry for the late reply. I would be happy to comment on the current draft. Isidoradaven (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC).
Mention of collaboration in the lead
The above draft illustrated the complicated relationships between the Chetniks, Partisans, Axis and Allies. It seems clear that there was collaboration going on between various of the parties (except, it seems, between the Chetniks and the Partisans). The descriptions seem well supported by sources. This seems to me to be a good way to deal with the issues at play.
While work is progressing on the draft for the body of the article, I think we should also turn our minds to the wording of the lead, which is after all, central to this mediation. Consider AlasdairGreen27's summary on the project page here. Given the complexities of the relationships, is the existing description appropriate? How should the collaboration be described in the lead? Sunray (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which description? AlasdairGreen´s? In my view, is wrong on the following statemets:
- "There is no no dispute that Mihailović collaborated with the German occupiers". Wrong. There is dispute. If not, it would be good to point the exact sources that claim that.
- The alternatives are not serious.
- There are good alternatives that are very well sourced found, for exemple, the one I proposed:
Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly condecorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians.
The best one that was already in place [8], that can possibly be expanded, or improved. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the version I proposed in second place:
Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general.
He lead the Chetnik movement that formed during World War II to resist the Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought a civil war against the Communist partisans.
After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the new Yugoslav communist authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad.
Altough a U.S. commision of inquiry cleared Mihailovic of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians.
I only removed the "Čiča Draža" mentioning, that we all had already agreed to exclude from the lede. FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- FKP, dear friend, we still await sources that say "he did not collaborate" or some form of words equivalent to that. Any source that raises any doubt at all will do - just the tiniest mention of non-collaboration, in any form of words, Please, help us. Or, alternatively, a source that says, in your words, "his role is disputed"; or a source that says "historians have mixed views". Or a source that says "his role is/was unclear". Please, Fkp, would you give us at least one source, a morsel, that supports you? Otherwise, I think we are done here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Alasdairgereen: Please talk with the mediator (Sunray). The last time we spoke, it ended with you telling me: [9], and that was not the first time you ended disrespectfull with me. I already gave you too many chances, and you never apologised. Pleae avoid talking to me. I am not your "dear friend". Also, it is you that have to source collaboration. You are acusing, you have to prove. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Buddy, the questions above are for you to answer. If you don't like them, and have chosen to attack me instead, well, I don't mind. Dude, knock yourself out. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Buddy"? "I think we are done.", "Dude, knock yourself out." Alsdairgreen, I´m not sure you know where you are. Please avoid talking to me, and also talking on me. It is not up to you to decide who needs to answer what. Please don´t mix your role here. Sunray is the mediator, you are an participant, and please act responsably, respectfully, and in acordance to what you are, a participant. Expose your case without mentioning me, because I am also just another participant here, not the only one. Please direct to Sunray (the mediator, and the one that makes decitions), not me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Filip, cool it. Talk about the content, not the contributor. Now I want to hear your response to my request for sources, not your comments about me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Buddy"? "I think we are done.", "Dude, knock yourself out." Alsdairgreen, I´m not sure you know where you are. Please avoid talking to me, and also talking on me. It is not up to you to decide who needs to answer what. Please don´t mix your role here. Sunray is the mediator, you are an participant, and please act responsably, respectfully, and in acordance to what you are, a participant. Expose your case without mentioning me, because I am also just another participant here, not the only one. Please direct to Sunray (the mediator, and the one that makes decitions), not me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Buddy, the questions above are for you to answer. If you don't like them, and have chosen to attack me instead, well, I don't mind. Dude, knock yourself out. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Alasdairgereen: Please talk with the mediator (Sunray). The last time we spoke, it ended with you telling me: [9], and that was not the first time you ended disrespectfull with me. I already gave you too many chances, and you never apologised. Pleae avoid talking to me. I am not your "dear friend". Also, it is you that have to source collaboration. You are acusing, you have to prove. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
@Alasdirgreen: I already answered to you. Once is enough (I touth).
@Sunray, I apologise for this dialogue, but I had to tell this user not to talk exclusively to me, and some of the resons for it. I wouldn´t mind deleting this conversation, but ultimately you decide. I´ll refrain from making these dialogues here, but please also remind this user not to be provocative. Regarding this user, he had been disrespectfull to me in several ocasions in the past, and I was advised, by the admins, to avoid him. Since all attempts of dialogue between us ended in same way, I agree with the decition, and really don´t wish to further make the same mistakes from the past, meaning, to give him a chance that repeatedly ended in same extremely unpleasent way. Since you have been present, I see no reason for us having direct conversations, but I´ll recomend, if you agree, that we direct to you, instead. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please everyone accept my apologies for taking part without invitation, even if just for a moment, in this mediation discussion. I have a question about neutrality of some modifications I did on the Bleiburg Massacre article, a secondary issue, but closely related to Chetniks and Mihailovic and even more closely related to what you are discussing about.
- Here you can find exactly what I wrote (reverted, by the way): I'd really like to know if you consider those edits in line with what you stated above about collaborationism of Draza Mikailovic and the Chetniks. Tank you to kindly give me an answer, and exscuse me again for my extemporaneous post. - Theirrulez (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit is obviously more objective, but has found oposition from the same POV pushing group. It is also dubious to describe the Chetniks as (exclusively) "Serb and Montenegrin", Serbs and Montenegrins were majority in it, but there were other nationalities present in it, same case like in the Partisans, and in the Yugoslav population itself... FkpCascais (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)