Jump to content

Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

an understandable act of mass terror

Solved:the edit was properly sourced

@Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to explain this edit and why did you described an act of mass terror as understandable?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

certainly. Tomasevich describes it as such in two ways. He uses the phrase 'easy to understand' and 'understandable'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
the statements are made in the context of exacting revenge for Chetnik killings earlier in the war, as per the text I added at that point in the article. I will not insist on its inclusion, and am not here to defend the statement, merely that it is what the source says and that the editor that deleted it actually deleted sourced content, inappropriately in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that you correctly interpreted Tomasevich?
You wrote: "The killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog was an understandable act of mass terror ..."
Tomasevich wrote:"brutal conclusion of the civil war is understandable ..."
  • On the same page Tomasevich mentions "the quisling forces and the Chetniks" but you did not mention the "quisling forces" which were murdered at Kocevski rog together with Montenegrin chetniks. Why?
  • Will you please be so kind to present the quote from pages 765 or 766 in which Tomasevich claims that murders in Kocevski rog were "an act of revenge"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am sure that I correctly paraphrased Tomasevich. With respect, you are pulling phrases out of Tomasevich without the wider context of the paragraphs in which they appear, and even ignoring the next paragraph. If I was not WP:AGF and assuming that you have not quite worded your question right, I might suggest that this is another example of your tendentious questioning on talkpages. I must point out here that you do not always understand the intricacies of English, it is clearly not your first language, but it is mine. Mine is also Australian English, so there are already differences between the English you have learnt and mine. That much is clear from our regular miscommunications. However, I will respond assuming your question is asked in good faith. What possible brutal conclusion to the civil war do you think he is referring to? In the very next paragraph he refers to revenge as being a factor in the brutal conclusion to the civil war! The desperate battles as the collaborationist forces tried to get to Austria and avoid surrendering to them (knowing what their fate was likely to be)? Of course not, they were still battles, not mass killings. Blind Freddy [1] could see that he is describing all of the Partisan killings of collaborationists at the end of the war (Ustase, Chetniks, Slovene Home Guard etc etc), which he describes as both 'revenge' and 'brutal political surgery' (both on p. 766), and he explains why. As far as why I have not included all the others killed, well pretty clearly the subject of this article is Djurisic (and the Montenegrin Chetniks insofar as to place his activities in context). Djurisic wasn't even killed at Kočevski Rog, and the information has been inserted to explain what happened to his soldiers. Few articles about military commanders explain what happened to their soldiers, and neither should they as it is not always necessary or even appropriate. I considered your suggestion a reasonable one in the circumstances, and included it, but that is all that needs to be included in an article about Djurisic. They were killed by the Partisans, partly in revenge for what they had done and partly as a way of getting rid of them so they wouldn't come back to bite them later. It's brutal and horrible, but that is what happened, and that is what the source says the motivation was. He also says that the actions of the Partisans at the end of the war were 'easy to understand' and 'understandable'. The places for a fulsome explanation of the fate of the other collaborationist forces killed by the Partisans in the same place are the Kočevski Rog massacre article and the Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II) and Montenegrin Volunteer Corps articles, surely? Once again, I do not understand what you are trying to get at. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War (1914)

  • "However, the Italians regained control over all towns and communication routes within six weeks, assisted by Muslim and Albanian irregular forces who were motivated by atrocities committed against their people by Serbian and Montenegrin troops during their withdrawal from northern and central Albania after the Balkan Wars."

Above mentioned assertion about events in 1941 is supported with "Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War (1914)" published in 1914.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

addressed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No its not. You used statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine (Workers newspapers) which are cited in the report. The International Commission stated that "The Commission was not able to verify those statements...".
You created another problem with the following sentence you inserted into the article:
  • "These irregulars remembered the Montenegrin occupation of Albania in 1913."
It is absurd to justify Albanian collaboration with Italians with six months Montenegrin occupation of Shkoder taking in consideration that Italia occupied all of Albania in period 1914-1943 (with short breaks).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "However, the Italians regained control over all towns and communication routes within six weeks, assisted by Muslim and Albanian irregular forces. These irregulars remembered the Montenegrin occupation of Albania in 1913,[4] when in the final phase of the Balkan Wars, Serbian and Montenegrin troops had committed atrocities against the Muslim and Albanian population.[5]"
WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The above presented text is synthesis of published material to advance a new position. Precisely to imply a conclusion that Albanian and Muslim irregulars assited Italian forces to regain control over Berane and other towns in Montenegro because of the Balkan wars events. That is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the Balkans Commission material and the tag. I will re-visit later. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror

Solved:All three major grievances against the Italians explained as per source.
  • "The Montenegrins quickly developed grievances against the Italians, particularly regarding the expulsion of Montenegrin people from the Kosovo region and Vojvodina, but also due to loss of territory and revenue."

The text of the source, page 139, says that there was an influx of 25,000 refugees into Montenegro. The source says they "constituted a great economic burden". Out of that number only 5,000 were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Rest of them were from other parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, like "refugees fleeing ustasha terror in the border areas of south-east Bosnia and Herzegovina". It is wrong to state that grievances against Italians were caused "particularly regarding the expulsion of Montenegrin people from the Kosovo region and Vojvodina" because it is not what source says. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

good point, addressed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is addressed, but maybe not completely. The first main grievance is more or less properly explained, but I think it would be good to clarify other two main grievances:
  • The source says: "page 139:Another grievance was the loss of the territory....near...Scutari... Plav... Gusinje, and especially the greater part of Kosovo region, all of which Italy included into "Greater Albania"...". Now the article does not present this important information about the territory awarded to Greater Albania. This is important information not only for the context of the relations of Montenegrin people (which includes Đurišić) with Italians, but also with Albanians and Muslims.
  • A third major grievance was caused by Italians who took money from population (Yugoslav banknotes of bigger nominations of 500 and 1,000 dinars) under excuse they were "unlawfully put into circulation" (page 139:"A third major grievance had to do with stamping of old Yugoslav banknotes... Many Montenegrins were economically greatly damaged as a result (though apparently banknotes of all denominations had been put into circulation legally..").
Therefore I propose to clarify the context of the relation of Montenegrin people (and Đurišić) with Italians, but also with Albanians and Muslims by adding a sentence like:
  • Italians annexed into Greater Albania territory which previously belonged to the Montenegro (Ulcinj, Plav, Gusinje and especially the greater part of Kosovo) and economically greatly damaged many Montenegrins by taking away from them all Yugoslav banknotes of bigger denominations).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Further info added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943?

Solved:Information that Đurišić arrived to Serbia in November 1943 is added to the article.

Pavlowitch says, page 195:

  • "A new development was Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November."

I propose to change the existing sentence: He was sent to a prisoner of war camp in Galicia from which he later escaped, reportedly in August 1943, and after some time reached Serbia. into:

  • He was sent to a prisoner of war camp in Galicia from which he later escaped, reportedly in August, and in November 1943 reached Belgrade.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No issue there, happy with the change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Source says Belgrade. He maybe reached some northern part of Serbia earlier since he traveled from Poland to Belgrade on his feet.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Accept that, what source have you got that says he got there on foot? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This source. Don't you agree that it is hardly possible that he bought a car and drove it from Poland. Anyway he reached Serbia before he reached Belgrade. Since the source says Belgrade it is better to stick to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
what source, Neubacher? He is a primary source, as he was involved in releasing Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No. Pawlovich.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The source you linked above is Neubacher, isn't it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added the ref to November, but it says Djurisic arrived in Serbia in November, and also that he made his way to Belgrade, it doesn't say he arrived in Belgrade in November. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To Slovenia or to Greece?

Solved:Information that Đurišić wanted to retreat trough Albania to Greece added.

The text of the article says:

  • From the time Đurišić joined Mihailović in northeastern Bosnia, he was very critical of Mihailović's leadership and argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia.

Pawlovich says (page 241):

  • "Đurišić wanted to go to Greece trough Albania, but Mihailović told him to prepare for an Allied landing, the return of King Peter and the formation of the national government."

Maybe Đurišić indeed argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia when he already reached northeastern Bosnia, but I think it would be good to present his initial position which was in favor of Greece instead of Slovenia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Family details

Was his father's name Ilija?

Source:

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't help you there, can't read the lingo and so have no idea whether that is a reliable published source or not. If you believe it is, please insert it into the article with an inline citation in the same form as those already used. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Reliability always depend on the context. This source is far from being reliable regarding WWII activities of Đurišić, but when it comes to the name of his father, I think it can be accepted, since there are many other web based sources which confirm that his fathers name was Ilija. Serbs have custom to name their sons against their fathers or ancestors. Taking in consideration that Đurišić's son name was Ilija that is also additional confirmation.
There is no mention of Đurišić's son Ilija in this article. I think this article should be better researched before A class nomination because A class biography article about 20th century person should contain family details, like family origin, name of the father, mother, son.... After reading this article I was sure that Đurišić was not married and had no children. Maybe many of sources about his family are not RS for his WWII activities, but that does not mean they should not be used for such simple indisputable assertions about his family. A paragraph within early life section would be enough, together with a couple of sentences in the aftermath section. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it is very strange that you are suggesting that this article is not ready for A-Class because we don't know the names of his father, wife and children. He is not notable for having had a wife and children. Inclusion of basic information about his upbringing has been done, and in fact was done during the GA nomination at the request of assessors. In all the texts I own that mention him, not one mentions his family at all. The information that has been obtained by PRODUCER is all in Serbian. Personally, if Google Translate is any measure, this article you have suggested as a source for this information is questionable at least. I fail to see the necessity of including chapter and verse about his family, unless the decisions or actions for which he is notable were made because of his family (and the sources make that connection). Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don' agree with you. This is biography article. I already explained this point to you when we discussed Đurišić's occupation. The topic of this article is not "Collaboration of Pavle Đurišić with Axis forces" or "Notable activities of Pavle Đurišić". This is biography article about Pavle Đurišić. His family is important for his biography. You can check it by looking at any of FA biography articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I note that PRODUCER has added the father's name. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
According to some websites he had a daughter Ljiljana (1937—1943) and a son Ilija (born 5 July 1940). His son Ilija have two sons. Paul (Serbian: Pavle) (born 26 December 1965), named after his grandfather, and Marko (born 26 May 1969). Đurišić's son, who left Yugoslavia in 1960, and grandsons live in Illinois, USA. Đurišić's wife also left Yugoslavia in 1964 and lived in USA where she died in 1981. I believe there are some more reliable sources than websites which can be used to support this information.
There are claims that his father was also military officer who participated in Balkan Wars and First World War. If it is true that his father also had a military career it should be presented to the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Which websites? Unless reliable sources are brought to the table this certainly can't be included. Also Pajović mentions none of this. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course. That is why I wrote: I believe there are some more reliable sources than websites which can be used to support this information. There is a book "Забрањени очеви у исповестима своје деце" which allegedly contains the text of the interview with Ilija Đurišić in which he presents some details about his family. Unfortunately there is no online version. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Karađorđe's star

Solved:Information about Karađorđe's star being awarded to Đurišić is added to the article.

There are claims that Pavle Đurišić was awarded with "Karađorđe's star".

Books:

Important note: Miloš Minić was the prosecutor on the Trial of Draža Mihailović. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to use Maclean, he also has some information about Djurisic being commended by Radio Belgrade which I will add. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks

Solved:Information about Case Black added.

Jozo Tomasevich emphasizes that one of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks. It is very important information that can help explaining the (missing) context of the events related to the capture of Đurišić. Right now the capture of Đurišić and his Chetniks on 14 May 1943 is presented without any context, like it was some kind of mistake, with this sentence:

  • Đurišić and the Chetniks did not resist their capture, and there were no casualties.

Source: "The Chetniks" (page 251 and 255, note 164):

  • "While the Partisans and the Chetniks were locked in the battle during the early spring, the Germans prepared their Operation Schwartz, the aim of which was the disarming of all Chetniks and the destruction of all Partisans in Montenegro and Sandjak"
  • "Proof that Operation Schwartz finally evolved almost exclusively into an operation against Partisans, though it was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks, is best indicated by German estimates of losses inflicted upon the two groops:...estimated that the Partisans had 12,000 killed and 1,500 captured, and the Chetniks only about 3,000 captured and disarmed."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

good point, added context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Monument

Solved:Information about the monument of Đurišić in Libertyville is already added to the article.

There is a monument dedicated to Đurišić. It is erected in St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville, Illinois. It can be seen at this movie, 2:21. It is mentioned in this source: Traveling on the Road 21 – Milwaukee Avenue, you can not but to see the monuments to general Draza Mihailovic and his military commanders vojvoda Momcilo Djujic and vojvoda Pavle Djurisic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Already added. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Biroli-Djukanovic Agreement

Solved:Information about comprehensive collaboration agreement included

Currently there is a paragraph that generally covers Djurisic's activity in March 1942; however there is a more detailed page in Tomasevich 1975 stating that at the time there was a "comprehensive" Italian-Chetnik agreement formed and signed by Biroli and Djukanovic assumed to be known by Mihailovic. It specifically details the collaboration between the Italians and Chetniks in Montenegro which included about 1,500 Djurisic's men being officially recognized and organized as a "flying detachment" and much more. See page 211 for more info. This should help add more context especially for the Biroli and Djurisic pic. I'll add this when I have the time unless someone else wants to have a go at it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
let me know if you think I've covered it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll assess the matter in detail tomorrow. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the "new" Nationalist Committee of Montenegro, a simple sanction of an "already existing committee headed by Djukanovic" (Tomasevich (1975), pg. 211), and its purpose should be included. Djukanovic was "the senior commander of all Chetnik forces in Montenegro" (Tomasevich (2001), pg. 142) and Djurisic was "aligned" to his committee (Milazzo (1975), pg. 85). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I rearranged the addition to make it clear it was part of the agreement. I also added the open arrangements of mutual understanding. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good additions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Solved:In this article, Google Book links are only added for books available in preview

Should the book references have Google Book links if the book is unable for viewing? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ah, now that one I do not know. Maybe MOS tells us? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
At GA they suggested they be consistent i.e. either all should have them or none. MOS only addresses the matter in the citations themselves stating: "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view." WP:PAGELINK Presumably Google Book links that aren't available for viewing likewise shouldn't be added in the references section. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get that. It is a bit counter-intuitive to make them all the same in the ref section. Then even if the book is available on preview, they have to manually search for it. I think it should be url linked if preview is available, and not if not. I might ask Ian Rose what the expectation is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There was at least one discussion at WT:FAC before my time as a delegate re. using GoogleBooks links, if available, for references. There is no requirement to employ them, nor is there a rule against them. If the GoogleBooks url is to a previewable work (as opposed to snippet view or no view at all) then you can feel free to employ it if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Commemoration controversy?

Unresolved
 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There are two sentences which explain why this memorial should not be constructed:

  1. The Association of War Veterans of the National Liberation Army (SUBNOR) objected to the construction of the monument saying that Đurišić was a war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of many colleagues of the veterans association and 7,000 Muslims.
  2. The following month the Montenegrin government forbade the unveiling of the monument stating that it "caused public concern, encouraged division among the citizens of Montenegro, and incited national and religious hatred and intolerance."

This section has title which includes the word controversy. But there is nothing controversial in this section. A group of people wanted to erect memorial in Berane dedicated to Đurišić. Why? Nobody knows. There is no explanation why this memorial should be constructed. It is carefully explained only why it should not be constructed. I apologize if I am wrong, but I don't think that position of people who wanted to construct this memorial is presented according to WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't make hide nor hair of the Google Translate of the glas javnosti article, I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
He "spent some of his youth at Berane" and "had also established his wartime headquarters there". Those reasons are given in the Glas Javnosti article. The article also says that the initiative came "from the part of the Serbian nation which has had to endure communist crimes that began 1941 and that have continued to this day." I don't know if that's Scekic's (head of the committee for the memorial) reasoning or just sensationalism on the part of the newspaper. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
another reason we might want to take care with the glas javnosti article is that they chose to carefully crop the picture of Djurisic to remove General Biroli... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not propose to progress this comment into an edit unless a WP:RS for the motivation of the people who planned the memorial is located. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NOVA's proposal

Solved:Information about NOVA's proposal added to the article
One Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) supported building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland because they were leaders of the 13. July uprising who fought for King Petar and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during WWII.(NOVA predlaže da država podigne spomenik Pavlu Đurišiću - Vijesti online.)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What is Vijesti, and who was the parliamentarian? And can you get a disinterested sr-5 en WP translation of it, unless PRODUCER agrees that is exactly what is says and that both Vijesti is NPOV and the parliamentarian is not obviously biased. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Vijesti is newspaper. The source is not Vijesti. The source is Goran Kikovic, historian and member of the Main Committee of the New Serb Democracy who gave statement to the Montenegrin News Agency (MINA). His statement to MINA was published by Vijesti.
Translation of the title: "NOVA predlaže da država podigne spomenik Pavlu Đurišiću" - New Serb Democracy proposes that state should build a monument to Pavle Đurišić. In the rest of the text there is an explanation why: “Zašto se novcem iz budžeta i lokalnih samouprava ne bi podigli spomenici vođama Trinaestojulskog ustanka 1941.godine, Pavlu Đurišiću, Baju Stanišiću, Jakovu Kusovcu i drugim oficirima i vojnicima Jugoslovenske vojske u otadžbini, koji su nakon tog datuma do kraja rata nastavili borbu za oslobođenje zemlje pod vođstvom kralja Petra i Vlade kraljevine Jugoslavije”, naveo je Kiković. - which is basicaly what I wrote above: "Why wouldn't we build (financed with money from budget and local municipalities) monuments to the leaders of uprising of 13 July, Pavle Djurisic, Bajo Stanisic, Jakov Kusovac and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland who after that date continued their struggle to liberate the country under leadership of the King Peter and the Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Solved:Proposal by User:Antidiskriminator to include non-WP:RS in these sections did not achieve consensus.

I noticed there is no See also, Further reading nor External links section in this article. It might be a good idea to create such sections because the topic of this article is very complex and it would be useful for the readers to point to the articles, sources or websites where it is possible to get more information about the topic of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe below presented source written by Montenegrin historian and University professor could be added to Further reading section:
  • Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 [From Vezier's bridge to Zidani most, tragic destiny of Montenegrin Chetniks in the final faze of war: 1944—1945] (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see an official gazette of FRY written in Serbo-Croatian as being useful neutral "further reading" for English Wikipedia. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you against my idea to create above mentioned sections?
An official gazette of FRY is the publisher. It is of course not neutral because it contains description of the very important events by one of its participants and can be presented as such.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with PRODUCER regarding the 'Further reading' source you have listed, and note that less than half of all featured articles have such a section. The 'Bibliography' section is pretty comprehensive for the subject matter. But I'm also unsure what you would put in a 'See also' section. I have been through the article a couple of times, and nothing jumped out at me that wasn't already linked in the article. I'm open to suggestions though. Any 'External links', like 'Further reading' should meet WP:RS, and I just haven't seen anything in English I think adds value. There is a lot of unsourced stuff on the web about the man, and I think we'd have to look long and hard to find anything useful that isn't already represented. Personally, I think this article has been very thoroughly researched, even if I do say so myself, and pulls together a lot of scholarly publications into a coherent whole. I don't necessarily oppose creating these sections, but I just don't see the need. The article is comprehensive. I'm sure it will be improved incrementally over time as more work is published on the topic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that my idea to add Further reading section is bad. The bibliography section is not enough for readers who would like to know more about the topic of this article. There are many other works on Đurišić. Some of them may not be reliable, but with appropriate note about their unreliability they could also be informative to the readers.
I don' agree that "this article has been very thoroughly researched" and that "The article is comprehensive.". There are to many important details missing, like family members information (the article does not contain information about his parents, that he was married, that he had children...), or reasons why some people wanted to build a memorial complex dedicated to Đurišić, and many other reasons. There is FA criteria which says that article should be stable before getting FA status. That was not the case with this article which was not stable, and had many nonresolved issues on the talk page and probably even more which would be presented before this article becomes stable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, which clearly was not shared by the FA team. Whilst I accept that there were some improvements to the article as a result of your questions, much of it was tendentious and lacking even the most minimal support from WP:RS (Iron Cross, song about him, family, etc etc etc). If I was not WP:AGF I might think the stream of questions was some attempt to either skew the article away from NPOV or derail the FA nomination. With all the instability that resulted... But I'm sure you wouldn't do that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article. Article based on unreliable source can not be FA. What is tendentious is insisting on RS when it comes to Further reading section and in the same time using unreliable sources in the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
or insisting that something is disputed but not providing one shred of evidence that it is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising

Solved:Source is properly interpreted.

The text of the article says:

  • "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced, with the nationalists having closer ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims. Ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania combined to make Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region."

The source (Pawlovich, page 78) says:

  • "The differences in the outlook between communists and nationalists were particularly pronounced in northern Montenegro, with its traditionally close ties with Serbia and its "frontier mentality" towards Muslims. It was there that ustasha manipulation of the Sandžak Muslims and the flight of the Orthodox from the area annexed to Albania was mostly felt. Whereas communists wanted to carry on with the revolution, by turning against 'traitors', 'kulaks' and 'spies' (particularly if they were Muslims), Djurisić and his fighters were impatient to go on with the uprising by marching into those districts and turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

I think that the source is misinterpreted especially because the source emphasize that:

  1. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against the working class enemies, especially if they were Muslims
  2. Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians.

Therefore I propose to properly interpret the source and to reword above mentioned paragraph to match what source actually says. Rewording maybe can be done like this:

  • "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced. It is a region with close ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims where ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania was mostly felt. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against class enemies, especially if they were Muslims, while Đurišić and his Chetniks wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you will, like many others, get into too close paraphrasing with the source. If you believe this is justified, you should make those edits yourself and let the assessors decide If you have paraphrased the source too closely. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I also believe that you might stray into POV territory if you emphasise that the 'communists wanted to carry on with the "communist" revolution',. That is not what the source says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The source does not say "communist revolution". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have expanded this section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I added necessary clarification, as per source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Berane

Unresolved
 – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There are claims that Đurišić's forces commanded by him captured Berane from Italians on 17—18 July 1941, during July uprising in Montenegro. If that is correct it is very important information which should be added to the article. The current version of the article could mislead readers to believe that communsts captured Berane while Djurisic was subordinated to them.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Still no idea. Perhaps you would consider taking PRODUCERs advice and provide a translation into English given this is en WP? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
en WP has one rule regarding AGF.
  1. Memorial to Pavle Đurišić should have been built when other memorials connected with WWII were built in this region because "Pavle Đurišić liberated Berane" ... - Historian Goran Kiković in his interview to Glas Javnosti
  2. Not because they were numerous but because they were determined to be victorious or to die, Đuršić forced Italan command to surrender. That way Berane was again in our hands on 18 July.... - Goran Komar, Vojvoda Pavle Đurišić
  3. Pavle Đurišić rose Vasojevići and on 15/16 July besieged Berane - Zalosna stvarnost: 1941; u spomen 25-o godišnjice trećeg srpskog ustanka, Božidar Sokolović, Vlado Trebjesšanin - 1966
  4. Berane was captured on 16 July after it was besieged by captain Pavle Đurišić - Treći srpski ustanak, 1941, Томови 1-2, Sergije M. Živanović
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Consult WP:RS on what constitutes a reliable source. Also, seize with these ridiculous "unresolved" tags when not getting your preferred outcome. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is unnecessarily harsh and violates Wikipedia:Civility.
Insisting on using the source which was found unreliable on RSN and at the same time proclaiming any source which does not support certain POV as unreliable is not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Answers at RSN "are not official policy" and your misinterpretations of Peacemaker's comments do not help. The sole review, supposedly decidedly against it, agrees that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages". I'm not the one copy-pasting numerous unreliable sources in many sections to support a "certain POV". Also determining whether the sources and their publishers are reliable, scholarly, academic, and peer-reviewed is not a sin. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for assessment as A-Class

Proposal withdrawn:Redundant

G'day all, You will be pleased to note that Pavle Đurišić was recently assessed as A-Class by WikiProject:Military History. I propose that this article be promoted to A-Class in WikiProjects Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. I request the support of two uninvolved editors from each WikiProject, in accordance with the general A-class assessment criteria. Please discuss under the relevant WikiProject subsection.

WikiProject Yugoslavia

WikiProject Montenegro

WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina

I think that article meets all of the A-class criteria, and was promoted as such in the WP Military History, so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be promoted in the WP Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Wustenfuchs 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia

There are improvement opportunities presented in my review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić but I think that this article meets A-class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:
  1. It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
  2. It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
  3. It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because
    1. there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
    2. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
  4. It is not stable.
  5. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN
I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw this request. It is clear from the lack of interest that either the WikiProjects in question have limited interest in having a proper assessment process for A-Class (similar to that used by MILHIST), or lack the numbers of users to conduct the assessments. In one case the process (with only one WikiProject Serbia editor that showed a great deal of interest) was excruciating and largely unproductive. The article in question is now a Featured Article. I do not intend to repeat this experiment with the WikiProjects in question, and will stick to GA, MILHIST A-Class and FA in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists

Not resolved, but no discussion for three weeks

Within six weeks after uprising started on 13 July 1941 Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. Here is what article says happened then (end of August, beginning of September 1941):

  • "A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.[7] As a result, the nationalists, including Đurišić who was popular in his own Vasojević clan of northern Montenegro, withdrew into the hinterland.[8]"

Tomasevich's work was used to support the the first sentence. Here is what Tomasevich wrote on pages 140-142:

I think that the source is not properly interpreted. The text of the article could mislead the readers to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941, after Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. That is not correct. The source explicitly says that it happened at the beginning of 1942. It is important to be precise with the timeline here because events of this period are very important for understanding the full context of the future events. Đurišić withdrew into the hinterland not because of the split between communists and nationalists, but because of Italians who captured towns and communication routes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was when the split developed, it says that was when Mihailovic's attitude towards the Partisans was reflected in the relations between the various forces from the beginning of 1942. If you are suggesting some additional information could be added to clarify when the split occurred in Montenegro I accept that, and will add something shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you need to clarify when the spilt between partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Otherwise readers could be mislead to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify, I cannot understand your phraseology "developed until". Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It is necessary to clarify when the split between Partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Based on the current text of the article readers could be mislead that it happened in August-September 1941 although it happened at the beginning of 1942.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast. There are two issues here, firstly the approach of the nationalists to the Italians in autumn 1941 (Tomasevich 1975) and their increased propensity to collaboration after Mihailovic attacked the Partisans at Uzice (on 2 November), and secondly that the anti-Partisan attitude of Mihailovic became 'clearly reflected in Montenegro' from the beginning of 1942 (Tomasevich 2001). So it is not clear exactly when the split began to occur (although some time in the autumn is likely), or when it was complete (although February/March 1942 is pretty likely given that was when the main Montenegrin Chetnik leaders made collaboration agreements with the Italians). Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

July uprising

Resolved: Information about Djurisic being one of the main commanders of the uprising added

The role of Đurišić in July uprising is still eluded.

Milovan Đilas says that "DjuriSic had distinguished himself during the July uprising in the battle at Berane, where the worst fighting took place." link.

If Đurišić's enemy (Milovan Đilas) admits that he had distinguished role in the worst fighting during uprising then his role was really significant and claims that Đurišić was "... a hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" are not mistake of biased book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

it's not 'eluded'. Please look on wiktionary for the meaning. I hope you mean that 'the article does not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising'. I would usually question the use of Djilas, given his first person involvement, but given he is unlikely to have written anything positive about the enemy unless it was incontrovertible, I think he is an acceptable source given he corroborates Kurapovna. Thank you, I will add him as a source and add the 'distinguished role' information. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are right. Đilas was indeed involved in the events. It is better to use Kurapovna and "hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" expression instead of "Captain Đurišić distinguished himself".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me. I have used Djilas as his language is neutral ie he used the word 'distinguished' and if he says it, then he certainly must have done that. Kurapovna's language is unencyclopedic and potentially biased/POV, ie whose 'hero' was he, and why? Having 'distinguished' himself does not beg that question. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that Djilas shold be used instead of Kurapovna if it is true that he captured Berane from Italians. But that issue is subject of another discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is very important information which is presented in the work of Pavlowich, page 75 during 13. uprising in Montenegro:
  • "The main commanders to emerge were Colonel Bajo Stanišić, ... Major Đorđe Lašić .... and Captain Pavle Đurišić." -
Đurišić was one of three main commanders during uprising. This information is somehow overlooked and not presented to the readers of the article. It is understandable why Kurapovna referred to Djurisic as the hero of uprising. He was one of three main commanders. That is very important information which should be presented to the readers both in the lede of the article and in the main body of the article. Milovan Djilas and his mention of Djurisic's distinction during the battle of Berane is unclear and misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This has now been addressed in the lead and main body of the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists

Not resolved in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator, who has not produced a WP:RS in over three weeks to support his contention

The text of the article says:

  • In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. and
  • A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.

Does it mean that Đurišić was subordinated to the communists during this uprising? If not maybe it should be clarified because the existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry for not responding to this earlier. It doesn't say that at all, please re-read it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I re-read it. It still says that:
  1. In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists.
  2. the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated
I am afraid that readers could be mislead that uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources say what they say. I haven't misrepresented them, or omitted anything from them that is relevant to this question. If you are aware of a WP:RS that makes it clear that Djurisic wasn't ever subordinated to the communists, or that clarifies this issue so the supposed implication is dealt with, please share. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Question: What impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?
Answer: That uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.
This article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a source which says that he was one of the organizers of the uprising: "Histoire Du Peuple Serbe" - Dusan-T Batakovic, p.323 "il fut l'organisateur de l'insurrection contre les occupants Italiens en 1941
Based on above mentioned explanations I propose not to mislead the readers anymore and to clarify that Djurisic was not subordinated to the communists being only a participant in their uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You will need a source for that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. On the contrary. Without sources which support implied Djurisic's subordination to communists it is necessary to make above mentioned clarification in order to prevent misleading of the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, no actually, not incorrect. The article does not imply Djurisic was subordinated to the communists, it says that the revolt was led by the communists and that he participated in the revolt. It implies nothing because the sources don't imply anything about that aspect. I don't know what his relationship was with the communist leadership of the uprising because it is not explained or detailed in any of the sources used for that aspect of the article. IF you have a source that explains what his relationship was with the communists, then you can add that information with the citation. If you don't it is WP:OR to either draw the conclusion that he wasn't in any way subordinated to the communists OR to draw the conclusion that he wasn't. I have not drawn either conclusion, I have only presented what the sources actually say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources don't imply anything about that aspect. The sources are completely clear about that aspect. Maybe you overlooked what Pavlowich wrote about Djurisic and his role in uprising:
  • On page 75 there is a clear distinction between communists and other participants in the uprising: Nationalists Stanisic, Lasic and Djurisic were three main commanders of the insurgents who "had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans" "Having heard of Ustasha and German terror most people felt that it was safer to tolerate the Italians, such as they were" Local notables wanted to turn "on the Muslims and Albanians in the region" "who were acting against their Christian neighbours" and who executed hundreds of inhabitants interning 10,000—20,000 and were allowed to loot and burn freely. "Communists did their best to inject some organisation and to take over," but without success. Therefore they were embittered and "turned against peasant mentality, as only ideologically committed continued to fight." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a mishmash of out of context quotes from the page in question. Pavlowitch does not directly imply or explicitly state what Djurisic's relationship with the communists was (if any). As I have said above, IF you have a source that explains what his relationship was with the communists, then you can add that information with the citation. If you don't it is WP:OR or at the very least WP:SYNTH to either draw the conclusion that he wasn't in any way subordinated to the communists OR to draw the conclusion that he wasn't. I have not drawn either conclusion, I have only presented what the sources actually say. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

Not resolved, but no discussion for three weeks

According to RSN discussion] Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One review is not the sole factor to determining a source's reliability or its use. The claims in the article that are attributed to Cohen's book have citations to primary sources in the book and, as even that review indicates, "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It was Cohen's book which supports very important (and disputed) assertion about Iron Cross. Not primary source like "note a" says. It is wrong to attribute Iron Cross assertion to primary source (which nobody saw) just because it is mentioned in unreliable Cohen's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is Ignoratio elenchi, the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issues in question. Instead of fallacies it is better to deal with issues. The issues in question are:
  1. unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
  2. referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in another section. I find your comment "You answer a question for a change" unnecessarily harsh.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is over. If you feel you can make a comment stating that it is disputed (above), refer to a section where you produced no WP:RS for the supposed dispute, then insist that YOUR question be answered, this clearly is going nowhere fast. There has to be mutual acceptance of the need for the discussion, and as far as I am concerned you have abjectly failed to bring anything to the table to dispute it. Maclean states that 'according to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans'. Maclean's book was published in 1957, Cohen's in 1999. Cohen references several things to that paragraph in his book, including Kostic, Parezanin and Stefanovic as well as the primary source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You overlooked the point. I will underline it: This section is not about Iron Cross dispute. This section is about two important issues of this article: using unreliable source ('Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War') and referencing the primary source to support assertion which is in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN due to its perceived slanting of facts to suit a conclusion (my summary). However, as PRODUCER has already pointed out, the review in question stated "no falsifications of history appear in its pages.". So unless you have a WP:RS that disputes the Iron Cross (ie indicates that there is a falsification in Cohen, specifically about the Iron Cross), there is no basis for removing that citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". It should not be used to support assertions in this article. All assertions based on this work, including microfilm assertion which is also based on Cohen's work, should be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not what was said. If you are so sure that is what was meant, then feel free to take this specific issue back to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That is what you said. I quoted you. You and PRODUCER insisted on RS many times on this talkpage, just search word reliable and look for yourself. Now, when the source you used is found unreliable you insist on using it, although you refused to use many other sources just because you claimed they are not reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Other editors do not agree the book is unreliable so do not reinsert your frivolous tags. Do not claim it's unreliable when the sole review brought up at RSN even states "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." Do not claim it's disputed without bringing reliable sources of your own. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you overlooked that Peacemaker67 admited: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". Until RS is found the references based on Cohen should be appropriately tagged. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit anything, I summarised what was said at WP:RSN. Your English comprehension needs some work, you just read into my comments what you want to see. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. You did not admit, you summarized: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and whilst I believe that was Fifelfoo's conclusion, I now have good reason to question the review that was produced. As this came up while I was working on the Ante Pavelic article (as I'm sure you will recall), I searched for more information on two of the dubious sources used in that article, published by the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies. In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is also used as a source in this article as well as the Pavelic one). And he supports Cohen and his book. I have linked the blog post here [2]. On the basis of Hoare's recommendation, I have therefore re-considered my position and will treat Cohen as a WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is a reliable source for the determination of the reliability of sources? Don't make me laugh. I've de-tagged Cohen in the biblio, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast Peacemaker67. You should present Atilla's website on RSN and gain consensus there before you proclaim victory of your POV.
  1. Your rationale and "re-considering of your position" is wrong and based on fact picking. There are other reviews of Cohen's book which are not so afirmative, like this review.
  2. Even Atilla admits that Cohen was not a professional historian or academicblog link.
  3. Atilla has been reported for his false statements and fake quotes published on his personal website. Here is what this complaint says about Atila's postings: "these posting contain false statements, fake quotes, and personalized smears. And Hoare not only impugns my academic research; he impugns my moral character as well. Taken as a whole, Hoare’s methods violate basic norms of academic conduct." - signed by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History
Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious because you refuse to accept independent input of RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, there are three editors here disputing your inserting those tags vs your lone self being oh-so-wiki-insistent. See WP:OAS; this is an FA and you're not to tag it lightly; not at all in the face of a consensus against doing so, here on talk.. I've {{resolved}} this thread. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. I am not alone. There is important independent input (don't forget that two editors who support Cohen are very much involved) at RSN which says that Cohen is not RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

All three uninvolved editors at RSN agreed about the contents of the book or its correctness. Yes, Churn and change wrote: "I am not disagreeing with you on the contents of the book or its correctness" ... but "using general guidelines"..." Cohen's facts can be included; his opinion should be attributed, since it doesn't seem the mainstream view. If adding the opinion and its rebuttal makes the article unwieldy, it can be dropped if the other cited material is higher quality."

You refused to accept the first RSN using excuse that it was based on one comment. The second RSN is not based on one comment. It is based on the consensus of several uninvolved editors and should be respected.

Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your excuse not to respect the first RSN because "in fact only one editor gave a view" as tendentious editing. When you tagged one article and wrote this comment you did not mind it being based on the view of only one editor only two hours after this one single comment was left at RSN. Just because you (mistakenly?) thought it supports your POV. But when RSN does not support your POV for 20 days you claim that it is premature to conclude anything. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I note for the record that I apologised to Fifelfoo for misrepresenting his opinion and withdrew. I also note that this was the first time I had used RSN, and I had not noticed the "consensus of several editors" guidance at the top of the page. I am obviously now aware of that aspect. I do not care one iota whether you AGF with me or not, or whether "someone" (meaning you) may or may not consider something I do as tendentious, so please stop using that terminology with me over and over again. It appears that you do not know what the word means in practice, as you use it far too liberally in inappropriate contexts. I further note that when there was a weak consensus at RSN (which is clear from the comments of Churn and change and Nick-D), you misrepresented the consensus by misquoting Nick-D (for which you apologised), and submitted a RfC to confirm that there really was a consensus. Your behaviour here and on other article talkpages as well as on RSN indicates that you want to get rid of Cohen from WP because his work undermines your point of view on WWII Serb history, and have demonstrated that you are willing to misrepresent other editors and that you are willing to forumshop to achieve your aim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A song

Not resolved in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator, but no discussion for three weeks

There is a very popular Chetnik song "Đurišiću mlad majore" [Djurisic, young major] written during the war and dedicated to Djurisic. Maybe it would be a good idea to add this information to the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

again, have never heard of it, and have not been able to locate a WP:RS in English for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ђуришићу млад мајоре - There are many sources that could be used as reference for song about Durisic. This song is very popular and interpreted by numerous performers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
and which of these would you suggest is a WP:RS? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think there is a need to support this assertion about this very popular song with the source of exceptional reliability? I don't think so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, verifiability, not truth. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Any of the presented sources can be used to support song assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You say it is/was popular. What do the WP:RS say? YouTube vids are just ridiculous at this class of article. So far as I am concerned, you need a WP:RS for its existence and popularity if it is to be included. There is nothing I can find in en, so you need to find something in sr and translate it. Don't link a pile of Google results. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, even I can work out that the first two hits are Radomir J. Ostojic (a Montenegrin Chetnik) and Ratko Parezanin (Ljotic's secretary) who was Ljotic's liaison officer with Djurisic when he commanded the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same Parežanin who you used to support disputed iron cross assertion based on unreliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What dispute? Again, what WP:RS do you have that disputes the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, giving undue weight to the controversial Iron Cross award is very big problem with this article which violates WP:NPOV. But Iron Cross controversy is subject of the discussion in another section.
This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić.
You used unreliable source to support Iron Cross award giving it undue weight and violating WP:NPOV. When the source you used was "considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN" you tried to defend your POV supporting it with work of Parežanin. Now you refuse to add information about the notable song dedicated to Đurišić also based on the same Parežanin. Someone who doesn't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious and disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There are three secondary sources for the Iron Cross, two of Cohen, and one of Maclean. I have repeated (and I believe PRODUCER has too) that even the pretty negative review of Cohen 1996 that Fifelfoo produced states that "No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs". That means that the contents haven't been falsified but the conclusions he draws in the book are dubious. The Iron Cross is not a conclusion drawn by Cohen, it is a fact he has presented. On that basis, I see no reason why he cannot be used for individual facts, but I would be very careful only to use his conclusions if they were supported by reliable sources. Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre. Your accusation of undue weight and violating NPOV is just wrongheaded and reveals your own consistent POV-pushing. As far as the song is concerned, have yet to see a WP:RS for it. When you produce one, we can discuss.
If there is anything bizarre it is your insisting on sources which you and PRODUCER consider RS for not such exceptional claims like song, but using unreliable source for very important assertions like extensively used and pictured Iron Cross assertion just because someone on RSN said that no falsification of history appear in its pages.
This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić. If you want to discuss using ureliable sources in this article please use appropriate section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
you are the one conflating one discussion with another. I've asked for a WP:RS for the 'notable' song. Haven't seen one yet though. Until I do I plan to ignore this string. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. You wrote "Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre." in the comment within this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides above mentioned list of sources which can easily be found trough Google Books search:

there is additional source for this song dedicated to Djurisic:

None of these sources establish notability, not to mention that most are flagrantly POV i.e. Ratko Perezanin was a collaborationist and high-ranking member of ZBOR, Radomir Ostojic was a collaborationist and chetnik, while Mile Kordic served as editor of Politika ekspres during the Milosevic era of the newspaper.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean like Dhimitër Frëngu, a member of Skandebeg's forces, whose work (of disputed autorship) is used as source in article about Siege of Krujë (1466–1467)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about that article, we are talking about this one. It needs WP:RS that establish notability for this information. It is not mentioned once in scholarly texts in English to my knowledge. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That is incorrect. It is not necessary to establish notability for this information supported by scholarly texts in English. If that would be necessary then this version of article would not be promoted to FA because it has seven web sources on Serbo-Croatian language. None of them scholarly text in English and all of them used in the article to support the text of the last section which explains why it is wrong to erect a memorial to Djurisic because he was a "war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of many colleagues of the veterans association and 7,000 Muslims".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we concentrate on one topic per string? You created this enormous list of your "issues" with their own sections, so it is reasonable to ask that you restrict the discussion in each one to the matter at hand. Again, what is the WP:RS you are relying on for the proposed inclusion of this material in the article? Clearly not Parezanin, Ostojic or Kordic, per ZjarriRrethues' comments above. Your point about Google Books searches above is lost on me. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I canot read or speak any language other than English with sufficient proficiency to translate. So if you want to convince me you'll need to translate the information about the source and the actual material you consider supports your contention. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pavle_Đurišić/Archive_2&oldid=1143664915"