Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive18

Nota Bene

There is a preview button for a reason. It is to be used so that watchlists are not flooded under many edits to the same page. I had this page on my watchlist because of what had happened with an IP, and was watching to see if anyone had objected. I had just checked my watchlist to se what I had missed while away, and found large groups of edits by the same editors. I wish you all luck and godspeed in this mediation, and hope the issue is resolved fairly and in a way that is acceptable to all. Hamtechperson 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined sections, 1st draft

Ok, I've set up a subpage with the first draft of the two sections we've been through and upon which we have reached some measure of agreement. One thing I have done is change the format of the references to a notes/references style. It's a bit odd when you first take a look at it, but it's much easier to use if, as we are doing, there are many references to large books and you need to specify page numbers. Take a look and ask questions if the format isn't clear. My thought is we can move sections to this subpage as we come to some measure of consensus, and do general cleanup there such as reference formatting, spelling, punctuation, etc, but not editing of content. Once we have the entire article in there, we can then discuss any additional changes we should make. Does that suit everyone? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my abscence, I´ll try to catch up as quickly as I can. FkpCascais (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the WWII section above to /1st_Draft_Sections. Does anyone have any objections to my archiving the section discussions above? I have no objection to review these materials, but I think it would be better to handle those discussions referring to /1st_Draft_Sections instead of leaving the sections in place on this page. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. FkpCascais (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just archived the three sections we've had discussions about. What should we work on next? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence, thought we needed a break. Will be back shortly. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligent work on this, Nuujinn. I would suggest we now tackle the final two subsections of World War II. Hopefully people will be ready to put some effort in once again and we can go at a faster pace. I've added the two new sections below. Sunray (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Its all well and good working on JJG's versions. However being his version it is inherently his POV and his POV alone. Due to my experience with the fellow I do not doubt there will be disagreements, his take on the issue is highly pro-Chetnik - to the point of rejecting fully sourced information. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's all assume good faith and see how it goes, esp. now that we've all had a bit of a break. I know I enjoyed a few days at the beach with good sunsets and refreshing beverages without thinking of WP at all, and will do so again in a week or so. I hope you all had similar relaxation in the interim period. -Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles must be NPOV, sources must be reliable and verifiable. Editorial decisions are made by consensus. That is why we are here. We have an agreed-on process. All participants are encouraged to describe the actual wording of changes they would like to see in the draft. Sunray (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleaned up the World War II, part 2 draft, removing strikes and colors, and fixing all but one ref and added it into the 1st draft subpage, and archived the original and commentary in archive 14, and also archived the legacy discussion in archive 15. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Nuujinn! It would be great if we can now move this forward at a faster pace. There have been increasing calls to make changes to the article, so we need to move towards closure on the dispute. I will put up the next section of JJG's draft for review. I would suggest that we try to complete it in 2-3 days. Would participants agree to look at it right away? 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the Second World War

I would write his biography before the Second World War. His life is not only the Second War. Therefore I see no reason to part biography that is not controversial and contentious is not written in the article.--Свифт (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rehabilitation

Tomorrow there will be a hearing at the High Court in Belgrade regarding the rehabilitation of Mihailović. Whatever the final results of this hearing, they will need to be incorporated into the article immediately upon their delivery and can't wait for this mediation to end. Blic article about hearings.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course that will be of great interest and should go into the article without delay. I would suggest that a draft of the addition could be reviewed here. It will be important to write it neutrally. It can be included in the article as long as it does not cause further dispute. Sunray (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)