User:Antidiskriminator/Sandbox/Old sandbox/Pavle Đurišić
Summary of my A-class review of Pavle Đurišić article
[edit]I began reviewing of this article based on the Peacemaker67's request at WikiProject Serbia diff and permanent link to the version of the article at the moment of this request. I immediately realized it has a very serious issue with neutrality. Since this topic was never subject of my particular interest, I hoped that this issues would soon be resolved. I was wrong. Not only because resolving of this issues was obstructed by a couple of editors who struggled to present demonized Pavle Đurišić who was as Nazi/Fascist lover and collaborationist as possible, irrational hater of people of Muslim religion, impatient to kill all Muslims and Albanians he can lay his hands on, especially women and children. The whole anti-Axis period (April 1941 - February 1942) including his important role in Uprising of Montenegro was overlooked. His actions against Moslem militia were presented as actions against Muslim civilians and "self-protection" Muslim forces, without any context. His cooperation with Muslims and Albanians was/is completely overlooked. Now, after I researched this subject more and after I learned more about attitude of main contributors of this article, I realize that it was more logical to propose renaming this article to Demonized image of Pavle Đurišić, then to resolve its neutrality issues.
Neutrality issues of the article were consequence of sources, more precisely:
- source selection:
- The article predominately relies on Western/Yugoslav communist era biography which is more or less biased toward Chetniks.
- no Chetniks sources are used in this article, even for the simpliest assertions like family members or songs
- usage of controversial Hoare/Judah/Cohen works
- cherry picking of sources to give undue weight to Subnor/Heinz/.... biased views without presenting the opposed views
- source interpretation - even the most neutral sources can be misinterpreted by cherry picking only details aimed to present somebodies demonized image.
As consequence the text of this article which had GA rating was a massive POV. Many of those POV issues were resolved, after a couple of major contributors of this article prepared a "hot rabbit" to me (not only in this article) for every small improvement of this article I managed to implement. Unfortunately, this has not resulted with NPOV article. The more I researched this topic, the more other POV issues I discovered.
- Every bad thing done to Djurisic and his Chetniks is presented as revenge or punishment for bad things they done. Bad things done by them was presented without any context, giving impression about their inherent bad nature.
- ........
- ............
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
| Issue | Explanation | Resolved (yes/no) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lede improvement | Lede spoke only about his life during WWII. That did not correspond with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. | Yes | |||
| his father was also military officer who participated in both Balkan wars and in First World War | There is an information about military engagement of his uncle, but not that his father was also a military officer | No | |||
| Lede starts with 1942. What did Đurišić do in 1941? | There was no pre-1941 information in the lede | Yes | |||
| they met their downfall in May 1945 | It was unclear what happened to Djurisic's followers | Yes | |||
| There is a picture which could be beneficial to commemoration section | An useful picture was proposed to be added to commemoration section | Yes | |||
| Missing context of the relation between Djurisic and partisans | There is a half of the sentence which mentions some atrocities committed by partisans in Kolasin. Such important information is presented in half of the sentence. Without any context. | Yes | |||
| Voivode | The article did not mention Djurisic's title of voivode | Yes | |||
| Balkan War (1914) | Statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine and quoted in 1914 report of the International Commission were used to support assertions about 1941 events | Yes | |||
| Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror | Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror were overlooked in the source and the text of the article only mentioned 5,000 refugees out of 25,000 who were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Generally, major grievances of Montenegrins against Italians were not properly explained. | Yes | |||
| When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943? | The article presented assertion about Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November. He actually reached Belgrade in November but was captured in Serbia in October. | Yes | |||
| To Slovenia or to Greece? | The article presented wrong information that Đurišić "argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia". In fact Đurišić had wanted to withdraw through Albania to Greece. | Yes | |||
| Family details | The article does not present enough information about Đurišić's family. There are websites with informations about his father, mother, wife, sons, gransons. | No | |||
| Karađorđe's star | The article did not present information that Đurišić was awarded with Karađorđe's star | Yes | |||
| One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks | Information about one of the aims of Case Black being disarming of all Chetniks in Montenegro was overlooked in the source already extensively used in the article. | Yes | |||
| Commemoration controversy? | In May 2002, plans were prepared for a "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" memorial complex to be located near Berane. There are |
No | |||
| NOVA's proposal | In 2011 one Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) proposed building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. | Yes | |||
| Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising | The full explanation of the distinction between communists and nationalists was overlooked and article only presented information about intention of Chetniks to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region without explanation that Communists wanted to continue with the revolution by turning against their class enemies. This is basically corrected with this diff. | Yes | |||
| Berane and Berane II | There are claims that Đurišić's forces commanded by him captured Berane from Italians on 17—18 July 1941, during July uprising in Montenegro. Those claims are supported by many different sources, some of them written by historians with PhD in History and specialized in the topic. | No | |||
| July uprising | The article did not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising. His involvement is mentioned later, but the information about Đurišić being one of three "main commanders" of the uprising to emerge is overlooked although it is presented in source extensively used in the article. | Yes | |||
| Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists | The existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. The explanations presented in the sources already used in this article are overlooked. | Partial | |||
| Iron cross controversy | There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. | No | |||
| Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists | 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. | No | |||
| Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star | The text of the article says that Đurišić received two awards. Karađorđe star and Iron Cross. Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede, two times in the main body of the article, in the caption of an image + collage of two images related to Iron Cross. Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. | No | |||
| Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War | There is no consensus about the reliability of this work. | No | |||
| Song | There is a very popular Chetnik song "Đurišiću mlad majore" [Djurisic, young major] written during the war and dedicated to Djurisic. | No | |||
| Not comprehensive and well-researched | Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 1) Declaration of Independence of Montenegro | Yes | |||
| Not comprehensive and well-researched | Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 2) Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans , | No | |||
| Not comprehensive and well-researched | Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 3) Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, | Yes | |||
| Not comprehensive and well-researched | Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects four major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: 4) Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces | No | |||
| First uprising against Italians - then Italian occupation of Montenegro | The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about uprising and Italian occupation. | Yes | |||
| Muslim and Albanian irregulars | Does article mention that "dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned" in this action of both Italian regular army and Muslim and Albanian irregulars? Not completely. I still believe that this information is very important for the context of activities of Đurišić and his Chetniks. Much more important than justification of irregulars' actions with memory on 1913 Montenegrin occupation of parts of Ottoman Empire. | Yes | |||
| To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population | The source emphasize that The Comittee of Nationalists of Montenegro had only one political aim: To crush communism and to safeguard law and order and the well being of the Montenegrin population. That aim is important for the context of the events. | Yes | |||
| First uprising against Italians - then Italian occupation of Montenegro | The chronology of the sections is wrong in case of section about German occupation 1943—1944. | Yes | |||
| Text about after WWII commemoration events within WWII aftermath subsection | There is a problem with Aftermath section also. It is within WWII main section but contains information about events in 2010. All such events should be moved into Commemoration section. | Yes | |||
| Removal of Karadjordje's star assertion | The article (link) presents claims about two awards Djurisic allegedly received: Cross (infobox, lede, main body of the article, collage of two images and their caption) and Star (infobox). One editor tried to justify much more weight given to Cross than to the Star (which I believe is against WP:NPOV) with exceptional nature of Cross. Instead to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and present exceptional sources for exceptional award when he was asked to, he started to deny that Cross is exceptional and proclaimed Star to be exceptional. Then he removed the Star from the article with explanation that this award is mentioned only once in Maclean's book and that there is a lack of exceptional sources for it. I explained that the first claim was incorrect (three sources were already presented earlier and I presented four additional ones) and explained that it was wrong and disruptive to remove Star because of the lack of exceptional sources without removal of more exceptional Iron Cross award on the same basis. | Yes | |||
| Djurisic's death place | The article is factually inaccurate regarding Djurisic's death place. Instead of Jasenovac it says Lijevce polje | Partial | |||
| Djurisic's year of birth | The article is factually inaccurate regarding Djurisic's year of birth. Instead of 1907 it says 1909. | Partial | |||
| Date of Djurisic's death | The source used to support date of Djuricic's death is probably misintertpreted | Yes | |||
| Say where you read it | There was cited source which was not actually seen by the authors of this article. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline it was necessary to clarify where was this source actually seen. | Yes | |||
| Citation overkill | There are eight cited sources for one assertion. | Partial | |||
| Incomplete list of battles in infobox | The list of battles in the infobox did not present Uprising in Montenegro | Yes | |||
| When Đurišić became a Chetnik? | The article presented factually incorrect information about the date when Đurišić became Chetnik (October instead of December) | Yes | |||
| Subsection | A large portion of the text (first three paragraphs) in the subsection titled "Collaboration with the Italians against the Partisans in Montenegro" is not related to the collaboration with Italians. This text is about Đurišić becaming a Chetnik commander, instructions he received on that occasion and his inability to "to develop an effective strategy against the Italians or Partisans in the first few months after his return to Montenegro" "despite his possession of these instructions". | Yes | |||
| Civilian threatened with execution | The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. It is information from Tomasevich's 2001 work (pp=141-142) that is already extensively used in the article. He explains that on 21 December 1941 Italians declared that they will held population of Montenegro responsible if their troops were attacked again. On 12 January 1942 Italians specified how they intend to punish population of Montenegro in case of attack on Italian forces: 50 civilians would be executed for every killed or wounded Italian officer. In case of regular soldiers 10 civilians would be killed. | No | |||
| Why Djurisic's troops were "separated from the Germans" | The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. An uninitiated reader could believe based on the above sentence that Djurisic was completely irrationaly collaborationistic regarding Germans, travelling across mountain peaks instead of main roads, just to relieve pressure on the German route of march. | Yes | Đurišić decided to move to Slovenia? | The article neglects a major fact or detail which is necessary to place the subject in context. There are sources which say that the decision was reached by the Montenegrin national committee on two sessions | No |
- "This was probably the largest combat action between NDH forces and the Chetniks in the previous two years" - The article presents Chetniks and Ustaše as allied. This sentence contradicts it because it mentions some major battles between Chetniks and Ustaše in 1943.
- Work of Nikica Barić is used to support above assertion, a member of Croatian team on the trial against Serbia.
- Demonization of Đurišić and Chetniks:
- In 1943, troops under his command carried out several massacres against the Muslim population
- a "frontier" mentality towards Muslims
- Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians
- "cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina"
- In early 1942, his Chetnik detachment became more active, especially in eastern Montenegro and the Sandžak against local Muslims
- The conference was dominated by Đurišić and its resolutions expressed extremism and intolerance,
- In early January 1943, the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims in the Bijelo Polje county in the Sandžak region of north-eastern Montenegro.
- On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 Muslim fighters (members of the Muslim self-protection militia also supported by the Italians), and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children.
- Despite the fact that both Đurišić's Chetniks and the Muslim self-protection militia were supported by the Italians, these "cleansing actions" represented partial achievement by Đurišić of Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to clear the Sandžak of Muslims.
- In mid-February, during their advance north-west into Herzegovina in preparation for their involvement in Case White, Đurišić's Lim–Sandžak detachment received further orders for "cleansing actions" against Muslims.
- It committed further atrocities against the Muslim population, this time in part of the Pljevlja county in Sandžak, and Čajniče county and part of the Foča county in Bosnia.
- In a report to Mihailović dated 13 February 1943, Đurišić reported that his forces had killed 9,200 Muslims, including approximately 1,200 Muslim combatants and about 8,000 women, children and the elderly.
- Is authenticity of this report disputed? (link to Pogledi) He also reported that: “ The operations were executed exactly according to orders. ... All the commanders and units carried out their tasks satisfactorily. ... All Muslim villages in the three above mentioned districts are entirely burnt, so that not one of the houses remained undamaged. All property has been destroyed except cattle, corn and hay. In certain places the collection of fodder and food has been ordered so that we can set up warehouses for reserved food for the units which have remained on the terrain in order to purge it and to search the wooded areas as well as establish and strengthen the organization on the liberated territory. During operations complete annihilation of the Muslim population was undertaken, regardless of sex and age.[41] ”
- A further massacre of about 500 Muslims, mostly women, children and the elderly, was carried out in Goražde in March.
- Several women were raped. -
- The total number of deaths caused by the anti-Muslim operations commanded by Đurišić between January and February 1943 is estimated at 10,000.
- The casualty rate would have been higher had a great number of Muslims not already fled the area, most to Sarajevo, when the February action began.
- The NDH forces were motivated by the mass terror committed by Đurišić on the Muslim population in Sandžak and southeastern Bosnia while Drljević was opposed to Đurišić's support of a union of Serbia and Montenegro which ran counter to Drljević's separatism
- the killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog was an "act of mass terror and brutal political surgery", similar to those carried out by the Chetniks themselves earlier in the war.
- It was partly an act of revenge for the mass terror carried out by the Chetniks against the Partisans and pro-Partisan segments of the population, and partly in order to stop the Chetniks from continuing an armed struggle against the communists, perhaps with Western assistance.
- Muslim "self-protection militia"? Is there an article about this militia?