Talk:Draža Mihailović/Mediation Request

Mediation request

The issue for the mediation request was filed as:
"Even though there is no proof of academic consensus, some parties insist that the article's introduction should have statement 'Mihailovic was a collaborator' rather then 'the issue is disputed among historians'. Britannica says it is disputed among historians."
Nobody is about to agree to your request with such a biased description of the issue. You do not seem to know how to file for mediation.

• User:BoDu is unable to understand that there are four scholarly sources currently listed in the article each listing several acts of collaboration between Draža Mihailović and the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia during WWII. There are an additional two or three sources listed in the Chetniks article, but the ones listed here are:
  • Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9
  • Cohen, Philip J., Riesman, David; Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history; Texas A&M University Press, 1996 ISBN 0-89096-760-1
  • Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8
  • Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001 ISBN 0-80473-615-4
• User:BoDu does not understand that with four sources in the article, the burden of evidence is on him, not somebody who does not share his personal opinion. He has been asked several times to provide evidence for his claim that there is "no consensus among historians" on the issue. He has not done so, i.e. he has not provided a single source that opposes the sources listed in the article on the issue of the collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks.
• Finally, User:BoDu does not seem to be able to understand that the tertiary source claiming that there is "no consensus" (Britannica) is copied from a blog (namely vojska.net) by somebody called Kanchan Gupta. It has been discredited as a copy of a text from a blog. (Even if this were not the case, and sadly it is, there is no reason to accept that claim on Wiki without a reference in the tertiary source, and/or at least one scholarly publication contradicting the ones in the article.)

In short, there is no evidence of an imaginary "lack of consensus among historians", there is only the large number of scholarly sources in the article. So far, this "lack of consensus" exists only as the personal position and opinion of User:BoDu. One that he insists on boring people with incessantly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I´ll be short, and I wan´t respond to any more provocations. You are messing up one thing: The fact that he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated (with one purpose only, in fighting the Partisans, not, and never, the "Allies"), doesn´t make him a Nazy Germany allied, neither makes him less important as a resistence moviment leader. We must make a difference between that. NONE of the sources claims he (neither the moviment) was a "Nazy Germany allied", as "your" lead sentence (and other text) "WWII collaborator" and "Chetniks and collaboration" clearly indicates. The words here are very important, and we all understand that.

The request should be extended to the article Chetniks and to the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism since the issue (level and importance of their collaboration) and the sources (the editors mostly too) are the same. FkpCascais (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.)

Ok, let me get this straight: you admit "the fact that he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated (with one purpose only, in fighting the Partisans, not, and never the Allies)", and yet you are contesting the use of the word "collaborator"? I'll just point out that after the Tehran Conference (late November 1943), and particularly after the Tito-Šubašić Agreement (June 17 1944), the Partisans were the Allies (he just refused to accept it, even when the King ordered him to join them, read up on that). The People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia (NOV i POJ) were the Allied military forces of the (recognized) Allied state of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY) for half the war in WWII Yu. So the point you're making is that (I quote): "he occasionally collaborated" and "(he only fought the Partisans [the Allies], not, and never, the Allies)".

That sentence betrays the absurdity of this discussion. Faced with undeniable evidence presented by professional sources, even you are "forced" to admit he "occasionally and on certain levels" collaborated. FpkCascais, it takes oly ONE act of collaboration to hang someone for high treason during wartime, and only ONE act of collaboration to call someone a collaborator.

P.S. I repeat: this mediation request will most probably be ignored since nobody is about to agree to a mediation request filed with such a biased issue description. User:BoDu, is most likely inexperienced in requesting mediation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you again, User:FpkCascais, if you feel the text of the lead is biased, can you post a lead here that is neutral from your point of view, but does not remove top quality sources and the info they support from this Wiki article? The sources are TOP quality, and they describe collaboration in the most direct and unbiased way imaginable - by listing actualy acts of collaboration between Mihailović (i.e. the Chetnik high command) and the German and Italian occupation authorities in WWII Yugoslavia.

Can you post a lead here on talk that would not remove sourced info? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR must provide proof that there is academic concensus if he insists the article must have statement that Mihailovic was a collaborator. User:DIREKTOR is lying that the Britannica source "is copied from a blog (vojska.net) by somebody called Kanchan Gupta". And, Britannica is a reliable source which supports my claim that there is no consensus among historians. BoDu (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@User:BoDu, this is utter nonsense, and a childish play on words. I have sources in the article. You have NONE. Therefore, if somebody is supposed to believe you that there is "no consensus" you are the one who is supposed to bring up at least some proper, published, scholarly sources that oppose the ones in the article. The burden of evidence is on you, not on me.

I do not have to prove anything at all, since I've already supported the text with TOP quality scholarly sources.

The silly Britannica quote (your single ref) is utterly worthless. It is 1) a tertiary source, with NO reference in it to any scholarly secondary sources that would support that "no consensus" claim, 2) User:AlasadirGreen27 has researched the source of the text - it is from Vojska.net, a blog. (and ffs man, use WP:INDENT) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Its no use discussing with User:BoDu, there's no point at all in replying to the same nonsense over and over again. "There's no consensus", "no consensus", "prove to me that there is consensus". My good fellow, the sources are there, where are yours? And please, stop with the comical Britannica quote already. You are not making any contribution to this discussion whatsoever.

@User:FkpCascais. Would you agree to a lead that added more emphasis on the fact that Mihailović's Chetniks were initially a resistance movement? I propose also that we change the wording. Instead of "WWII collaborator" would it be more acceptable if the text stated that "he collaborated" (I'm quoting you here)?
Please, I'm trying to meet you half way, do not take advantage of good will by insisting once more that the sources be removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::P.S.: About your statemnt to me: (Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.) Well, only in your posts directed to me on this page (from "POV...again" on, without counting the previous discussion) you´ve refered to me as: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time) , without the times you have clearly misslead the mening of my words or when you purposly missinformed other editors about the reasons of my block. So, these are really kind words, and I am being paranoid (you just indirectly called me that too) without any reason, right? Please avoid using all this unpleasent words any more, and please try to find some other ways of expression that don´t include this rude terms, and this constant confrontational attitute. Me, and the "community", will be thankfull. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you can clearly understand from my comments that I do want to let the sources in. What I am saying is that you are manipulating, exagerating and distorcing the meaning of the same sources. The same sources "cover" my proposed lead and most of my edits. Those same sources DO NOT cover "your" simplicist "collaboration" theory, they just "source" an ocasional collaboration, very distant from "your" claims.

About the lead, no, the Chetniks were not "initially" a resistence moviment, that statement is false. The "Chetniks" WERE a resistence moviment.

I see plenty of space for exploring the "collaboration claims" in a separate chapter (as it already is), but the lead would be much better if it is made something like the way I proposed. Why don´t you accept my lead? Reasons?

About you trying to "meet you half way", well, having you being somewhat of "reasonable" (after 2 months) is really something!

The situation here is clear. An attempt was made on this and other articles by Direktor that, by "sourcing" occasional collaboration, an entire moviment (Chetniks) and its leaders are to be considered "collaborators" and their resistence role is to be ignored. The same sources (having in mind that are the most accusational on the Chetniks that exist) still fail to demonstrate that, and even explain that the collaboration between them and Germany was indirect and oportunistic. A revision of the use and interpretation of the sources in these articles are to be checked. Anyway, independently of this, the role of the moviment and Mihailovic as resistance was also deminished and in cases removed from the articles, and it should be recovered, so a NPOV is reached. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to illustrate what Direktor is doing with the sources and with other editors words is found right in his las comment: He says:

"...would it be more acceptable if the text stated that "he collaborated" (I'm quoting you here)?" Meaning, quoting me.

Well, this is a clear exemple because what I said is: "...he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated..." quite different from "he collaborated", being the two very much different. That is exactly what Direktor constantly does with the sources, and that is manipulation and missinterpretation, worste off all, on purpose (I know, I know, WP:AGF, but it is hard when that becomes a constant on his behalve). Isn´t that sanctioned on WP? FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ANALIZING THE SOURCES DIREKTOR USES FOR HIS TOTAL COLLABORATION THEORY:

So, the most important: the "collaboration" on the lede has 4 sources:

• 1 - The first, (J.Tomasevic),1 "Major Dangic efforts to arrive at a modus vivendi with the Germans in Eastern Bosnia at the beginnings of 1942 failed...". Afterwords speaks how "Chetniks were in fundamental disagreement with Croatian authorities on practically all problems, but they did faced a common enemy in Partisans and this was an overiding reason for the collaboration that ensued between the Croatian authorities and MANY Chetnik detachments". Many, not all, and on that moment, not trough the war. And it is with the Croatian authorities, German allies, but not the Germans themselfs.
• 2 - Here (P.Cohen),2 well, we can even find the sentence that the agreement between the Germans and Mihailovic wasn´t archived because "Kogard stated that he could not troust the Chetniks because unlike Nedic, Ljotic, Pecanac and many others, who had openly sided with the Germans from the beginning, Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht." Are we reading the same? It even says they fought the Germans, right the oposite of the collaboration claims! Later speaks about how Chetniks mutilated German soldiers! Afterwords, what Nedic explains at the trial in 1946 is that Mihailovic gave a list of goals and conditions for collaboration. It even sounds as an ultimatum, and not a surrendering under German command. And, the conditions were not even accepted... The rest of "collaboration" is mostly refered to Pecanac and Nedic.
• 3 - Here (S.Rament),3 it starts speaking about the Chetniks-Italians collaboration, in Montenegro (only), and continues refering that in the NDH (Nazy Croatia) "the Italians accepted these demands beleaving that such measures would win the Chetniks over to a collaborative arrangement and take the wind out of the communist insurrection..." Then says, "while some Chetnik leaders entered into collaborative relations with the Italians and with the Nedic governament, others...avoided any cooperation with the occupation regime." What clearer than this sentence? But becomes clearer!, "Moreover, even where local Chetniks did collaborate, they did so on their own terms." Continues, "Given the disunity and pervasive opportunism of the Chetnik movement..." Also, and refering to Mihailovic, "Mihailovic was aware of and condoned the collaborationist arrangements into wich Jevdjevic and Trifunovic-Bircanin entered." Condoned? We all know its meaning, don´t we? Afterwords speaks of specific Chetnik detachments that collaborated with the Italians (the Nevesinje Chetniks), bur anyway, that "alliance" was vetoed by the Germans, as cited right after.
• 4 - (Tomasevic, again),4 this is the most eficient source, but again, it doesn´t make never a connection between Mihailovic and collaboration, and speaks about the collaboration that existed in Croatia between the Chetniks there, and the Italians first, and Germans latter. Anyway, Tomasevic as an ethnic Croat (involved in the dispute) may definitelly not be the most NPOV, so, as per WP:V Exeptional claims an additional sources are needed.

After analizing the sources used, Mihailovic can´t definitelly be considered a "notable collaborator" (as included by Direktor at the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, and its role as a resistance movement leader is not to be questioned (specially after a post-mortum trial at USA released him of all collaborationist charges, and awarded him). The collaboration did existed, but is hugely exagerated in the Direktor edits. Even these sources explain how the collaboration between the Mihailovic Chetniks and the Axis powers was weak, sporadic, indirect and oportunistic. Even here is mentioned how Mihailovic condemned when some detachments collaborated. Also is refered how the Germans kept considering them as enemies troughout the war, thus imposibilitating any claim that their collaboration was superior than their resistence efforts. And please don´t forget we are analizing here the sources that were most incriminating for Mihailovic, leaving aside all the ones that speak how great were the efforts of him and the movement in fighting the Axis...

P.S.:I apologise for my massive comment, but it was necessary to help understanding most of the reasons for this discussion.FkpCascais (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, FkpCascais. No point trying to respond to this essay, I'd have to quit college. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can´t see how would you respond, since I completely exposed the sources, and demonstrated that they don´t indicate "collaboration" as you wrongly claimed. You were completely exagerating and manipulating their content, even using them in oposite way in certain cases. Anyway, my coment was directed to everybody, not specifically you. FkpCascais (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

lols. :P While I am honestly shocked that after weeks and months of discussion you finally opened up the sources, I do not see how it helped your case. Listing any and all positive sentences about the Chetniks has nothing to do with the issue. The sources are listed there because they describe acts of collaboration between Mihailović and the occupation authorities. They still do, and are still very much valid (in spite of the amazing fact that you read parts of them). The sources are professional works describing all or most of the Yugoslav Front (1941-1945), therefore they do naturally mention all sorts of things, Chetniks that collaborated at one time, Chetniks that did not collaborate at another time, etc. Lol, they were not falsely quoted. Please remember that not many people will care what you do or do not personally proclaim to be an "exceptional claim".

The bottom line is: no you quite obviously did not "expose" anything, the acts of collaboration that support the text in the article are still very much there. I frankly cannot believe you are still trying to discredit these TOP quality sources, first the author, now this nonsense. (Also, thank you for pointing out that Draža Mihailović knowingly condoned the widespread collaboration among his subordinates, that is high treason as well as I'm sure you know. I should probably insert that as well.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to have to work during the weekend so I am most likely not going to be available saturday and sunday. I'll be able to respond tommorow and then on monday. Apologies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR, you say that you provided top quality sources. True, but these sources are not proof that there is academic consensus. Not a single source, you provided, says that all or most historians claim that Mihailovic was a collaborator. Brittanica? Well, according to the rules a tertiary source is a reliable source which may be used to give overview, and the lead section of a Wikipedia article is overview. Also, it should be said that Brittanica is the best quality tertiary source in the world. PS It is ridiculous to claim that Mihailovic biography on Brittanica site is copied from a blog because the same text is found there. It is nonsense. LOL, I can now copy a article from Wikipedia, paste it on my blog, and than say I am the author of the text. BoDu (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mihailovic "condoned" meaning, allowing an "unusual alliance". He wouldn´t be needing to "condone" if that was an everyday action.

I just posted parts that contradict "your theory" and coraborate that collaboration was occasional.

You can´t insert decontextualised parts of text. Your simplicist "he was a collaborator" isn´t said anywhere, and that and other claims like that he, and the Chetniks are "notable collaborators" are completelly unsourced. You just can´t exagerate and interpretate the sources the way you want!

I already asked you to be civil an avoid using, when refering to me, desrespecftfull and insultuous words such as "nonsence", is it that hard? FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Brittanica source, are you (direktor) sure wasn´t Vojska the one that coppied the text from Brittanica? Do you have proof Brittanica copied it from Vojska? And even if did, isn´t the fact that they accepted it as Mihailovic biography a fact that becomes accepted, including that becomes "Brittanica´s" source, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

REASONS BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR MEDIATION:

• Also, there has been proposed a more NPOV lede, but user:DIREKTOR insists in the inclusion of "he was a World War II" collaborator". He uses four sources: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Please have in mind that these are the most incriminatory sources that Direktor could find, so are most probably the most incriminatory that exist. The sources, as you can obviously see, describe the collaboration that existed, but is inevitable to see from the texts that the collaboration is described as oportunistic, ocasional and partial (never claims that the entire movement collaborated). It also completely fails to demonstrate that Mihailovic himself collaborated, being the only reference in that sence the one found in the fourth source when is said that Mihailovic was aware and condoned the collaboration of two of his detachments. But, in oposition to this, the sources clearly say, specially the second one, that any collaboration between the Germans and the Mihailovic Chetniks was impossible because, citing source, "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". The second (Cohen) and third (Rament) are definitelly more reliable and NPOV, since the first and fourth are from the same author (Tomasevic) who is an Croatian, thus possibly not free of POV since the Croats fought the Mihailovic Chetniks, and had an important role in this same war. There must be also held in consideration the fact that this was a three side war, and that Mihailovic ended up executed by his major rival, the victorious Tito, that in the period after the war, did his best efforts to demonstrate how he was the only resistance leader in Yugoslavia, and made a enormous campaign to declare Mihailovic and the Chetniks guilty. The United States discharged Mihailovic of all accusations and highly condecorated him for his efforts in fighting the Axis during the WWII. France highly condecorated him too.

The editing of the article by User:DIREKTOR has extremely biased the article with a total manipulation of the meaning of the sources. An enormous exageration has been edited about his collaboration, and his awards and his role as a leader of one of the major resistance movements in the Balkans has been completely ignored. This article, and the ones related, desperately need to be revisioned and the POV parts need to be excluded. Despite needing to act accordingly to WP:AGF, it is very much obvious that User:DIREKTOR purpose in these articles is to totally monopolize these articles so they should contain only his POV (that by having in mind that he is Croatian, and until recently, an assumed Titoist, is very much disfavourable regarding a Serbian monarchic movement and its leader Mihailovic). DIREKTOR has exclusively been active on this articles on the collaboration and related issues. Resumingly:

• Considering Mihailovic and the Chetniks simply as collaborators is being challenged, and a change that would have in consideration the throu meaning of the sources, and an NPOV is needed.
• The inclusion of Mihailovic and the Chetniks in the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism is also being challenged. The level of collaboration of Mihailovic just can´t be compared with those found in the template, that in their vast majority openly collaborated directly with Germany from the beginning to the end.
• The article Chetniks and all related must be edited in a more NPOV, and in accordance to what is going to be decided here.
• User:DIREKTOR has been warned by some admins to behave regarding this articles in accordance to WP:OWN, and there is a constant complain regarding his abusive monopolization of them. His attitude and kind of language that uses has not been correct, and has shown plenty of desrespect towards opinions different than his own. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that we look at the definition of the word "collaborator" itself to settle this? If Mihailovic's actions conform to the definition found here, then he definitely is one. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Lets supose that Mihailovic is a "black&white cat". Black is his collaboration part, and white his resistance.

• 1 - Most sources confirm that he is "black&white".
• 2 - There are no sources saying he is a "black" cat.
• 3 - Within all the sources, even the ones that state that he is quite a dark cat, clearly state that is "black&white".
• 4 - There are plenty of sources and facts that say that he is quite a "white" cat. (USA&other allied nations cleared him of the charges and condecorated him). White cats definitelly accepted him.
• 5 - A "black&white" cat can´t definitelly be included in the list of "notable black cats".

This is a simplicist exemple that can very much clarify the situation. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy is productive, since the cat can't change its coat. If I collaborate with an armed force for my own purposes and with good intentions for a limited period of time, I have been a collaborator. If I resist those same armed forces at a different time, I'm a member of the resistance. Many people have been both.--Nuujinn (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, the coat can´t be changed. I´m not saying the cat is "white", I´m am just saying that some editors insist in having him considered a "black" cat, and that is POV. If he was "black&white" he was "black&whaite", not just "black" or "white". Any atempt to make an article in that sence would be POV. By the way, Mihailovic, and the Chetniks were mostly resistence movement, the cases of collaboration were occasional and never "full", so he can´t possibly be considered both "awarded resistance hero" and "collaborator". And, only one source (Tomasevic) makes a link between Mihailovic and collaboration... Such accusation needs more than just one, and if possible, more NPOV sources (Tomasevic is Croatian). FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the black cat-white cat analogy is the most sense I've ever come across. I get the feeling my little troll will be starving from now on. Brutal Deluxe (talk)

FkpCascais, no offense, but I don't agree that a person cannot be considered both an "awarded resistance hero" and "collaborator". In fact, from what I've read thus far, it seems very clear to me that that's exactly the case here. Clearly, Mihailovic was in a difficult situation, but the assertion that he did collaborate with the axis and also the assertion that his forces fought against the axis are both well sourced. In terms of establishing that he did collaborate, I would point to the following three quotations from the four sources you all have been discussing (emphasis mine):

• 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."

So in this case, to use your analogy, the cat is both black and white. But we are not just talking about simple patterns of tone in fur, we are talking about individuals under extreme conditions with limited resources and knowledge, whose actions or inaction led to many deaths. I think the lead, as it stands now, is pretty fair and neutral in underscoring both his collaboration and resistance, and I'm speaking as someone who does not care one whit whether Mihailovic was or was not an axis collaborator. I'm certainly open to reconsidering this, if you can present some sources that state that Mihailovic did not collaborate with the axis. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just analised the content of this same sources few comments back... I am not claiming that he didn´t collaborate, I just agree that the article needs to be "toned out a bit", as already other editors asked. His awards are hardly even mentioned in the article, and his "Axis collaborator" is in the lede. I am not asking nothing unusual. The problem arised when User:DIREKTOR blocked and started reverting any attempt to do that. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@brutaldelux - If you are here to contribute, that is fine, but your last post very much belongs to Troll, so plese don´t make personal attacks or other sort of provocations. Your point is clear, respect others. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read all of this, twice now. You have been claiming that there's not consensus amoung scholars that Mihailovic collaborated with the axis. There are good sources that say that he did, and (so far as I can see) none that state that he did not collaborate, so I think the consesus is that he did collaborate. Do you disagree, and if you do, what sources can you point to? And what exactly do you think is wrong with the lead as it stands now? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven´t been claiming that (it is another editor), so you obviously didn´t read or understood my points. Lets wait for the mediatio, ok? It is after all the version that I disagree with that is currently on the article, so we don´t have to repeat aurselfs, neither you need to warry for now. If you read the discussion you´ll have your answers. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. So you agree that while Mihailovic did operate as a resistance fighter against the axis, he did also act as a collaborator? If that is the case, what exactly is wrong with the lead, and how would you suggest the lead be reworded? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where FkpCascais' "black and white" I'm-neutral-direktor-is-a-propagandist show falls apart. He is pushing for the complete removal of sourced material referring to Mihailović as a collaborating resistance leader (which would leave the lead in contradiction to an entire article section). I have previously stated on numerous occasions that I am perfectly fine with a different lead, one that others may find more neutral. I have, however, insisted that the lead make it clear that this person was, without a shadow of a doubt (and FkpCascais hs admitted it on several occasions), engaged in collaboration with the occupation of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This where DIREKTOR's show falls apart. These are the rules:

"For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player in the world" expresess an opinion; in can not be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact."

The statement that "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis" as if it were a fact - is against the rules. BoDu (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, no offense intended, but I believe you are misinterpreting the rule. Were we to say that Mihailović was the best resistance fighter or the most horrific colaborator of WWII, we would be in the realm of opinion. To say that "John Doe played baseball" is not opinion, it is rather an assertion of fact that can be verified. Now, I quoted three reliable sources which in effect assert that "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis". Clearly, he also engaged in some level of resistance, and the reasons for his collaboration or the degree of his collaboration can surely be debated. But absent any reliable and verifiable sources stating that Mihailović did not collaborate, I think the statement "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis" stands undisputed. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I may offer an additional source, Winston Churchill, in his book Closing the Ring, Volume 5, p.415: "Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received show that he [Mihailović] had been in active collaboration with the Germans". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, Britannica says that this issue is disputed. Can you provide a reliable source which claims that this issue is undisputed? BoDu (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

xD Its no use, Nuujinn, that's about it: you're not going to get any further with User:BoDu. Yes, BoDu, Prof. Peoplefox has decided to write a book entitled, List of Undisputed Historical Issues, where he explicitly states "Even though nobody seems to be able to find any sources disputing this fact, and even though there are very many reliable sources that confirm it, I thought it might be a good idea to make it clear: Draža Mihailović was a collaborator, indisputably." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if you source some collaboration between them, and use it to put in the lede "WWII collaboreator" (as if that was really NPOV), I could also add to Tito and the Partisans, because they fough the Chetniks that were considered Allies, that they were collaborators, as well, so I can go to Tito page and add in the lede, "Tito, WWII collaboprator, fought the Allied forces despite recomendations to reach an agreement". OK, so lets do that? That would really be usufull (its called "Reciprocity", and equal treatment)... FkpCascais (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, to be a collaborator you are supposed to collaborate with the Axis. Josip Broz Tito and his forces did not, in fact, collaborate with the Axis military at any point. They were engaged in combat with the Chetniks at the time when they were still Allied forces and the Partisans were not (November 1941-November 1943), but that does not make them collaborators with the Germans and Italians.

You may feel free to write that the Partisans were enemies of the Chetniks while the latter were recognized as an Allied resistance movement, however, you should also mention that the Chetniks (having just received Allied recognition) were the first to attack and betray the Partisans during an Axis offensive. While the attack was taking place, the Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism", etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, fighting Allied forces will make him (Tito) Axis in person, worste than collaborator... FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

lol fail. Not really, FkpCascais. One can either 1) fight Allied forces, or 2) fight Allied forces in collaboration with the Axis.

• The Partisans defended themselves from a Chetnik attack. An attack that failed miserably in spite of its trecharous nature, being a breach of an alliance agreement within the resistance and set at the time when the Partisans were defending from a German offensive (and while Mihailović was negotiating to "place himself at the disposal of the Wehrmacht"). Hostilities naturally continued afterwards, but the Partisan forces never collaborated with the Germans. Indeed, as they were socialists, the Axis wanted nothing to do with them.
• The Chetniks (an Allied force, 1941-1943) attacked the Partisans in 1941. After 1943 they lost Allied recognition to the Partisans. The Partisans became the Allied Yugoslav force 1943-1945. During that period, Mihailović and his Chetniks fought Allied forces (the Partisans) in collaboration with the Axis.

You do not seem to know muc about this war. I keep advising you to learn more on this subject before engaging in these complex discussions.

You stated that "fighting Allied forces makes someone Axis, worse than a collaborator". Mihailović not only fought Allied forces, but also collaborated. So he's a collaborator and "Axis in person" ("worse than collaborator"), according to you that is. xD

(Of course, everyone knows that fighting Allies does not somehow make you "Axis by default". That's one of the most obvious and basic facts in these sort of discussions. The Axis is a military Alliance - you have to be in agreement (allied) with the Axis to be "Axis". To put it simply, collaboration with the Axis makes you Axis.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nujjinn,

1. Annyone can edit Britannica? Try to do that, and tell me what happened
2. Your version of what Britannica says is that some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent
3. According to the rules, a tertiary source is a reliable source. On other hand, you are still unable to provide ONLY ONE reliable source which claims that most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, so your secondary sources are not counterexamples. --BoDu (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, regarding your points above (although I think you've jumped sections):

1. Ok, I'll let you know how it comes out.

2. Not exactly, but close enough I think. That is not, however, equivalent to saying that "some historians assert that Mihailovic is innocent." The U.S. commission may have found him innocent of collaboration, and if you want that added to the article, I have no objection.

3. I respectfully disagree that I need to provide any sources that directly assert that "most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis". We have at this time some secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, and no secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not engage in collaboration with the Axis. This is a really very simple issue to me--if some scholars do dispute that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, we should be able to find them, and use those references. I've looked, and haven't found any yet, and I assume (in good faith) that you have search for those as well, and also failed to find them. ----Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I am waiting...
2. Well, in any case, Brittanica says some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent. It does not use word most
3. If most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, we should be able to find at least one reliable source that makes such claim. So far, the only reliable source found which gives summary of the academic opinion says that some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent. --BoDu (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)