Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive19

This is still going on ???

It must have been three months since I left in disgust over the waste of time of this mediation, and my dislike of one particular editor. I am appalled to see that it is still going on. Could it please be cut short ? The priority should be to put to death the current, shitty version, which is a deep insult to any reader's intelligence. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is - mostly on the subpages. However, the pace has slowed considerably. I will contact participants in the next few days to see where they want to go from here. Sunray (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm ready to start on a new section, and if there are no objections, I'll merge the current workspace section with the ones we've been through once. I'm a bit concerned with the divergence of what we have been working on here and the article in mainspace, but I don't have any good ideas on how to deal with that. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I archived both the Activities and WWII sections, and incorporated the Activities draft into with the others, and cleaned up the references. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see any point in continuing this mediation. IMHO, it is a complete and utter waste of time and I am not willing anymore to give it a chance. What should be done is 1) replacing the current version, which gives wikipedia a very bad name 2) start working from a new one. If Nuujinn wants to keep enriching and improving the article, that's ok. But I don't see any point in doing this in the context of a mediation which advances like a lethargic slug. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sure Wikipedia fans everywhere are saying "sure Wiki is great, but what about that Draža Mihailović article..." xD.

That said, the mediation was indeed handled half-heartedly. Hats-off to the determination of you both, esp. Nuujin, but Sunray, if you can take a bit of criticism - what is the deal with this already??! Had I not spoken to you from the start trying to get to the jist of the problem? Could you not've simply reviewed the sources and came to a decision regarding the disputed edit(s)? My goal was not to influence your point of view, but just to get this unbelievable mess over with. If we had just gotten past the main issue of the mediated dispute, we could expand the article in due time.

After almost a year, Sunray, is it in accordance with the sources to remove the statement that Draža Mihailović had collaborated, and had knowingly condoned the collaboration of his movement in general with the Nedić regime and the Axis forces (such as the Italians)? I just don't care anymore, can we get a "yes" or "no"? What's your opinion?

If this is not resolved one way or the other, what you will simply see in the end is a renewed edit-war in the article after a year of ineffective, overly-neutral mediation. However at that point I'm sure the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the "brutish Balkanites" who could not be tamed even after "all that effort". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has about a gazillion articles that are overtly biased, poorly written, poorly sourced, etc. Hence, it is not great : its principle is great, but the end result is not. Moreover, the fact that a relatively important historical subject remains stuck with the repugnant piece of POV-pushing is highly counterproductive and proves the ineffectiveness of the current process. This mediation should just die right now, so the article can be freely enriched and improved. (Not to mention the fact that Chetniks, Yugoslav front, etc, which were the target of the same insane pov-pushing). I don't see the point of this mess, nor do I think the article should be the object of any kind of "edit war". I think the point has been made here that the subject requires fare more neutrality than the current ghastly, ham-fisted, piece of clumsy propaganda. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You may rest assured that I'll be keeping the article under close watch. You'll not "freely improve" the article by removing/rewriting any of the references showing Mihailović's collaboration. In fact, I shall be adding additional scholarly references I presented here earlier regarding his deep connections and close relationship with the Nedić regime. The same goes for all the other articles you intend to censor in accordance with your POV. For future reference, I strongly advise you 1) not to push any undiscussed edits, and 2) to stop pushing a new edit once its been reverted to the original version - shifting your attention to the talkpage (in accordance with WP:BRD). Otherwise the situation is likely to spiral out of control - and we'll need mediation. xD

This just shows what I mean, Sunray, the point of the mediation is actually not to improve the article, but to solve the dispute. In the end, after all these months, what have we solved here? I would not say that "mediation failed" (which will likely be the watchword soon enough), more that it never properly took place. And I think my good friend JJG agrees with me here. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Many people confuse the role of the Chetniks in WW2. Chetniks are collaborating with the Italians in their occupation zone. But they are officially called the militia and the secret they were under the Supreme Command of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. General Mihailovic put the militia under his command in 1942. For this decision, there was approval from London. The following year, General Mihailovic was expecting the Allied landings on the Adriatic coast. It is the militias or the Chetniks was are supposed to play an important role in this. On May 1943 German forces had illegally invaded the Italian occupation zone codenamed Operation Schwarz. But during the summer of 1943 Italy changed sides and in September, accepts surrender of the Allies. Basically one could say that General Mihailovic militia forces secretly took under his command, and that his main forces were illegal and belonged to the guerrillas. This tactic was used and the NDH. General Mihailovic had under his command in parallel the two types of its units, legal and illegal. This strategy has given good results and confused the enemy. During the war there were two resistance movements, the national and the communist movement. It is impossible that there was only a communist resistance movement. After the war, militia forces or legal Chetniks were used at trial as the main evidence of collaboration. Deliberately was is excluded the war strategy the once resistance movement, which continues to this day due to a series of historical circumstances in the Balkans.--Свифт (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If fighting within the enemy's military is a "war strategy", then it is one that undoubtedly constitutes collaboration. And its not just the Italians&Mihailović, its also Nedić&Mihailović and Germans&Mihailović. This is as far as can be traced to Mihailović, the Chetniks in general collaborated with all Axis factions - even the Ustaše [1].

My good fellow, you are new to this discussion in general and not a participant in the mediation. You have a lot of sources and facts to cath-up on. See here please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain in a briefly presentation, the role of militia or the legal Chetniks as part of the tactics of the Yugoslav Army in the country led by General Mihailovic. No one on this project not known better than me biography of General Mihailovic. During the war all sides have committed crimes, the Ustasha, the Germans, the partisans, Chetniks, Italians. Also the Partisans collaborated with the Germans. Even the partisans and the Germans signed an agreement on joint struggle against the British, Americans and the Chetniks in the event of Allied invasion. During the collaboration was saved a large number of documents [2][3][4]. Partisans the collaboration are even with the Ustasha [5]. Of course all this had strategic reasons.--Свифт (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is not about the Partisans - so even if you're right - Mihailović was a collaborator. Secondly, you're not right. What you are talking about is very well known. In 1943, when it seemed likely they will be wiped out, the Partisans are alleged to have made overtures to the Germans. However the Germans in the end nearly executed the representatives (Đilas&crew). There is absolutely no evidence that any agreement was ever even signed, let alone honored. It is however, well known what the German (Axis) policy towards the Partisans was: quite simply "kill all". Prisoners were not taken, wounded were massacred, all civilians in Partisan controlled areas were executed. Quite logical - they were communists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was about the biography of Mihailovic and not a militia or legal Chetniks. If you have been talking about the militias and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, then we talk about war. In war there are warring factions. So it must be mentioned in the discussion and partisans, Germans, Italians, the Ustasha. Their plans, interests, which were not identical. During the collaboration of partisans and Germans in the spring of 1943, there was agreement over have stopped fighting among themselves. Prevails was the truce and then both sides to agree that their main opponents of the Chetniks. Partisans and the Germans knew that they were preparing an invasion of Western allies on the Adriatic coast. At that point, the interests of partisans and the Germans were identical. Anyone can see evidence that I have shown and there are a lot of original documents [6][7][8][9].--Свифт (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're serious about the pictures? Please learn what constitutes a source on Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:OR. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Image is the visual evidence!

'In Zagreb we hosted it nicely, in the Headquarters of the city, and enjoyed full freedom of movement, so he could visit his parents. Horstenau was a friend of Vladimir Velebit's father, the former Austro-Hungarian officer. He appreciated the family of Velebit, because the past two generations have given officers the Austrian army.

• Von Horstenau, Glez : Between Hitler and Pavelic, Nolit, Belgrade, 2007.

Vladimir Velebit was a member of the Supreme Headquarters of the Yugoslav partisans led by Josip Broz.--Свифт (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I do not let that claims is General Mihailovic the collaborator, but this is the position of the United States. I am with that have nothing to do. This is the official position of the United States. This country as we know made a great contribution to the struggle against Nazism.

Richar Nixon

It is impossible that the American president honored Nazi collaborators! Harry Truman was by honored of the Legion of Merit to General Mihailovic of the first degree, the rank of Chief commander. American presidents then and now very informed statesmen in the world. Truman was awarded Order of General Mihailovich on the recommendation of the Pentagon, which had previously formed a committee and based on the report of the commission Truman was signed a decree on the decoration. The Commission has collected all the documents about of General Mihailovich as the U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies. The Americans are then had possession and confiscated German military documents. If they find in them anything that would prove that the General Mihailovic associate with the Nazis wiht this medal he would never have been awarded. Mihailovich's military career as well as any other officer can be reconstructed on the basis of decorations. If they find in them evidence that would argued that the General Mihailovic in terms of its collaboration with Nazism wiht this medal he would never have been awarded.

"General Dragoljub Draza Mihailovic distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander-in-Chief of the Yugoslavian Army Forces and later as Minister of War by organizing and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia, from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to friendly control. General Mihailovich and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies, and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the Allied cause, and were instrumental in obtaining a final Allied victory." March 29, 1948, Harry S. Truman.

Here you can read the reasons for which he was decorated. It's not only about the rescue of allied pilots. But the official position of the United States. This same attitude is valid for all American presidents to date. In the United States has a large and influential Jewish community. Did someone may have thought that the Jewish community would not react in this case to date. With the name of General Mihailovic United States do not allow a claim that a Nazi collaborator!--Свифт (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, I was not topic banned about this. That will be revoked, trust me no that. The topic ban was about maps, but the admin said ethnic/map stuff. That was interpreted wrongly - it was extended to ethnic stuff. This stuff here is strictly about draza mihajlovic - not something ethnic. (LAz17 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

Eastern Europe

You had the luck, because the Red Army was not occupied Paris. In Eastern Europe there were people who non were for the German occupation and the occupation of the Red Army. That the Red Army occupied France and led Communists to power, they and Charles de Gaulle accused of the collaborationist. It is this insult intelligence.--Свифт (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

So far, the mediation has not solved the main issue. As I said above, its not that the mediation "failed" - it just never really took place. Not to diminish in the slightest Nuujin's or Sunray's excellent efforts in expanding the article - but I think the mediation is about solving issues, not article improvement. So far, I must say, Sunray has not facilitated a move in that direction, content with article expansion. I had written to the fellow months ago asking him to help us solve the issue itself before beginning to write article sections. It seems most involved users silently acknowledged (by leaving) the futility of bickering over every sentence in every section rather than solving the issue itself as a whole - and then moving to article expansion.

The end result of all this will be an excellently written article that will inescapably be torn apart by edit-warring, ARBCOM will be brought in, and the mediation will be considered failed because of the "Balkans savages". Rather than ARBCOM we need a proper mediation - either a new one or this one reformed along problem-solving lines.

There are certainly no hard feelings :), but I think we must be open regarding the problems here, since ARBCOM is in nobody's interest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, if I may, how would you suggest we solve the issue of Mihailović's collaboration? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back. I think that the answer to your question is: Complete the redraft. We are at least 2/3 of the way through and have covered some of the most difficult pieces (with the "Legacy" section on hold until later). Nuujinn has done a great deal of work editing JJG's draft. However, one or two participants cannot do it all. Are you willing to collaborate on continuing with the draft? Sunray (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see the connection between completing the new draft and solving the issue that this mediation is about. To be more precise, I am unclear as to how expanding the article will resolve the underlying conflict? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)(LAz17 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand, unless you are unclear what mediation is. If participants agree on the wording then the mediation is resolved. BTW, the matter is not one that could go to arbitration. Sunray (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(For future reference please be advised that User:LAz17 has been topic-banned from these discussions. He has just recovered from a month-long block and I will not hesitate to report him again in the case that he ignores the ban. I will also be on the lookout for socks.)

I fear, Sunray, that you may have underestimated the scope of the problem you've undertaken to solve. Working on the wording of this article is 1) a very temporary solution, 2) of very limited scope. Wikipedia is ever-changing, sooner or later the issue will pop-up again. It also spanns several articles (Chetniks, Yugoslav Front, etc.) and is in its essence the question of Mihailović's collaboration.

Getting everyone to agree on a particular wording should not be our goal here imho. That would be a superficial, short-term remedy, and after a year of effort a rather fleeting success. What we should be adressing is the CORE conflict underlying the wording disagreement. Solve that (one way or the other), and we've truly accomplished something here.

From years of experience on the Balkans articles I can assure you with virtually absolute certainty that very quickly after the new version is introduced some guy will arrive (from experience and since this is Serbian history - probably from Serbia), he will not like the wording, he'll change it, and we'll be back to square one. I've been around on those articles for a long time. You settle the issue (one way or another) with one guy, here comes another one month later and here we go all over again. FpkCascais was likely No.12 or something. I won't beat about the bush anymore: either we solve the underlying issue, or this mediation will have ultimately failed (and frankly after all this time one hopes it can have lasting effect). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

About mediation: It is not a permanent fix. However, if we get consensus among article editors for a particular article or articles, that consensus should carry a great deal of weight. Mediation is about specific content. It is not a magic bullet to end all conflict. However, if two or more editors learn how to solve one set of problems, it is then more likely that they will be able to solve others.

You describe the "underlying issue" as being an endless succession of new editors who will change the article. The only way I can see to deal with that is to put a record of the agreement by participants on the article talk page and agree to uphold it. Part of that would be to insist on reliable sources when someone wants to make a major change. Of course consensus can change, but it should only do so within WP policy. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Its as simple as pie: this mediation was essentially called for in order to achieve consensus based on available sources on the issue of Draža Mihailović's collaboration. If a new article is written up, and a direct, unambiguous resolution is avoided - this mediation will have failed to serve its purpose.

Remaining "neutral" is all very nice an very pc, but its no way to solve disputes. Writing up an article based on walking the middle ground is simply avoiding the issue itself. We will not achieve anything in the way of conflict resolution by writing up an article. This much is I think clear to anyone, and was obvious from the start. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you achieve consensus based on available sources without placing those sources into a re-written article? Otherwise there are endless discussions leading nowhere, as was amply demonstrated here. Sunray (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The endless discussion was endless because its never been structured, and objective criteria for establishing actual facts were never used. Quite simply the participants were allowed to ramble on and disagree "out of principle" regardless of any sources (notice I'm not singling out any side of the debate). In a structured debate, we would focus on reliable sources (WP:V) themselves, use them to establish this or that fact, and then move on - as opposed to a continuous nonsense argument where participants just start in another direction or ignore sources outright ("disagreement on principle").

Everyone will never agree, that much is obvious (this could not be the first time such a debate arose). This is why consensuses are based on sources, not the opinions of users which may or may not have been derived from them. In other words, our goal here should be to actually discover whether Mihailović collaborated or not - and thus solve the conflict one way or the other. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clearer, imho we need to one 1) start an orderly, structured, impersonal debate on the main issue, and 2) we need you as the impartial, objective mediator to step in when you assess that this or that fact under discussion has been established in accordance with Wikipedia requirements and policy. That is basically all I'm saying. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the point in being stuck into an endless "mediation". IMHO, the only way to advance is to discuss honestly and without agressivity. "What do you think of this ?" "What do you think of this source ?" "Hey, here is a new one", etc. If Nuujin is willing to advance this way, and it appeared to me that he was, then I have no problem with it. This way, we could begin by replacing the current hideous POV piece of crap, and then start building something remotely decent. No need for a "mediation" for this (nor do we need "arbitration" or any other assorted idiocy). I'd say we should put an end to it NOW and try to work on the articles (Mihailovic was the worst of the bunch, but "Chetniks", "Yugoslav front", "Partisans", "Tito", and IMHO every bloody article of the lot needs to be closely watched and, if need arises, rewritten). So, please end the mediation. End it now. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JJG draft. I agree partially with Nuujin´s work, and I already explained the parts I challenge. I am not the problem here, and I will agree with any final draft that will sound neutral and that will deal with the collaboration part fairly. Any attempt of trying to give the impression trought the article that he is mostly a collaborator is wrong and we all know the reasons why some collaboration happend, the purpose of it, and the anymosity that existed between him anbd the Germans troughout the process. The insistence on the acusational tone is what is making this mediation long. I never objected in dealing with the issue of collaboration (I even proposed having a chapted dedicated on that) but what I see is an insistence in having the issue as dominant in the article, and that is the POV pushing that is making all this trouble and delay. FkpCascais (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

JJG wants to close the mediation so he can start butchering the article (the... "killing the piece of shit" [10] as he calls it). For some reason it seems he does not understand that will simply lead to an edit-war - and back here. Though if he is successful by some miracle he may count on me and others giving his edits our undivided attention.

I on the other hand, understand where that would lead us, and would instead like to solve the issue here by refocusing the mediation on the issue itself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But you, direktor, are giving the phalse impression that his, JJG´s, edits are controversial, and that is absolutelly not the case. JJG draft and his general editing on this and related issues is excellent and as neutral as possible, while it is your acusational tone that you insist to include in this and other related articles that is creating all this. The exageration and manipulation on the collaboration issue is causing all the damage to this, and it is quite offensive. FkpCascais (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

His edits are disputed. That is what I'm saying, and that is what they most certainly are. They are "not controversial" to you, yes, but to others perhaps less so. It is hardly even necessary for you to post these sort of statements. Everyone can already assume as a matter of course you support JJG in every way, and that you find everything I say or do "offensive", "manipulative" and generally eeevil. This extreme variant of failing to assume good faith is the primary reason we're here in the first place.

Now please gentlemen, the mediation isn't going anywhere, and this thread is on a different topic altogether. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You all seem to be saying similar things. No one likes the article as it is. All agree that there was collaboration and that the way to approach that is with reliable sources. All agree to make the article as NPOV as possible.

You are now better at discussing and collaborating, IMO. I am offering to continue assisting with the task we began: collaborative editing of the article. Then I would be willing to moderate further discussions. Who agrees with this approach? Sunray (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@"All agree that there was collaboration" Let me be as direct as possible: do you as the (impartial) mediator then assess that the sources have confirmed Draža Mihailović did in fact engage in collaboration? (with regard to Wikipedia policy and requirements)

I am asking because JJG and Fkp have not and will never ever agree to that. :) The only way to actually end this is to finally say (out loud :) whether the sources have in fact shown this. Then we can move on to the details of his association with the enemy, a discussion where I certainly hope we can also have your assistance, in the way of an impartial view on the (in)sufficient sourcing of this or that fact being discussed. (Whether this should take place before, during or after the article expansion is up to you of course.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not the role of a mediator to "assess [what] the sources have confirmed..." It is the role of the mediator to assist the participants to reach consensus within WP policies. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are those two mutually exclusive? In this case I would say that the role of the mediator is to assist the participants to reach consensus within WP policies - by stepping in at times to help us determine whether this or that fact under discussion has been sufficiently sourced according to those same WP policies.

I am not trying to manipulate you, it is simply that without such intervention the discussion here has and will inevitably be of the same "quality" as the one on the talkpage. What is the whole point then? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are close enough to an understanding. Would you be willing to resume the task we began? Sunray (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm afraid I do not understand: what understanding are we coming close to? I ask because as far as I know both sides still hold their own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to the discussion between you and me about the role of the mediator. Sunray (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I want to butcher the article ! This worthless piece of crap is wretched on every possible level, and is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even half a functioning brain, not to mention a disgrace to wikipedia as a whole. It deserves not only to be butchered, but to be eviscerated without anesthetics.

Now, what should be done is to conclude this mediation as soon as possible. I've been away for some time in disgust over it all, but if I understand well, the draft has advanced somewhat, thanks to Nuujin's efforts. To make my position clear : I am perfectly willing to assist in finishing it, if we can achieve something vaguely worthwile. I don't have the time nor the patience to read through all the sub-pages, archived pages, etc, so I'd like to ask Nuujin if he can point me all the sections that need validating, and especially referencing : if I can do so, I will then add ASAP a source to each passage that remains unreferenced because of the text's reorganization, so we can finish the article and put a merciful end to it all. Now, Nuujin, if you're ok, just leave me a message here or on my talk page an tell me what needs referencing. (then, if FkpCascais and Свифт want to add/correct some more stuff, that shall be welcome). Thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Raging all over the place but displays the full depth of your POV, rather than consisting some sort of an "argument". Nuujin, please keep a very close eye on this person's "butchering". I would also advise that this sort of insulting and abrasive behavior should not be rewarded with actual assistance. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Direktor: There is no need for this. We all have POVs. That is not the issue. The question is can participants edit collaboratively to produce something worthwhile. I hear JJG and Nuujin saying that they are willing. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray. Oh I see, well then what exactly is your "plan of action", so to speak? How would you suggest we arrive at the final decision regarding whether Draža Mihailović did engage in collaboration. How will we finally answer the yes-or-no question? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this. Did you not agree to resume the task we had begun previously? Sunray (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunray. I'm here to discuss Mihailović's wartime role and to finally see whether he did in fact collaborate, thus solving the conflict one way or the other. What you are doing is trying to get users to expand the article. How exactly is writing-up the article going to help us answer the disputed question? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I see that working is that when we come to a place where it is alleged that there was collaboration, one or more editors examine the sources and propose text. Other editors review the text and make changes (based on reliable sources) until there is agreement. Then we move on. If we come to a more difficult piece and get stuck (e.g., the "Legacy" section) we may flag it to return to. We keep moving forward building on successes. At some point, the participants active in this will be editing collaboratively. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem with that, and I do hope you'll answer my concerns. Imho:

• 1) it is inefficient. Instead of solving the one dispute, it creates dozens of them, i.e. every point in the article with a connection to the point of contention is turned into a whole debate of its own (with the strong tendency of turning endless). This takes immense amounts of user time and effort - completely unnecessarily.

The above is the main problem, but there are also two more points which stand on their own.

• 2) it is evasive. These "difficult piece of text" which as described above invariably turn into an endless, pointless debate of the model we've previously encountered here are to be skipped in our work. Solving the dispute surrounding these difficult pieces of text is in fact the main reason why we need this RfM. They are in fact difficult because they broach the main dispute. If we skip them, or rather, if we skip dealing with the main point of contention that they are about, we are not resolving the conflict but merely article editing and evading the issue at hand.
• 3) it is circular. By skipping the main parts under dispute we simply eventually arrive back at the point where we need to get past them. What this will amount to, sooner or later, is a the same problem "how to solve the main issue?".

What I propose is: lets solve the issue first. Solve all the difficult pieces of text with one tightly organized discussion on the main issue. Then the easy part - article editing - can be a collaborative effort involving all interested Wikipedians as the RfM will likely be finished and the article opened up - with the conflict solved here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As you say yourself, there have been endless circular discussions. I'm saying that in my opinion this group does not have the level of trust and civility to engage in more discussions productively. That is why I've made a proposal and suggest new groundrules, If participants can agree to that, there is a chance that we will turn the corner on this. The most progress this group has ever made was in editing text. As participants resolve issues through editing, they build the capacity to resolve the bigger issues. My expertise is in gauging the ability of participants to solve problems. I'm saying that I think that this would work. Would you be willing to give it a try? Sunray (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its been a year Sunray, I'm just not prepared to unnecessarily edit text unrelated to the issue just so I can work on working on being able to start work on solving the dispute. We need a decisive resolution, "one fell swoop" as it were. The ground rules are a good start, but forcing the endless article editing and dissolving the problem into dozens of "mini-disputes" is imho a step back. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is true that most participants have not been active for some time. We will need more participation if we are going to get anywhere. However, I can't seem to convince you, so I'm fine with it if you want to continue sitting this out. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So... you do not judge we have the level of trust to discuss the issue so you'll just have us editing text until we're ready? And if there are any real problems we just skip them? This has to be one of the longest RfMs in history, it still has not moved one inch toward a resolution to the problem issue, and you will insist on keeping this course?

Its not a question of me sitting this out. Its a question of whether this mediation has solved or ever will solve anything, and whether the users will get anything more than frustration from it along with an immense amount of wasted effort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Several participants have indicated their agreement to proceed with the editing of the article. You indicate that you don't think that will solve the core problem. Here's what I suggest. You, me and Fkp were discussing the Legacy section some time ago. I suggest we resume that discussion (opening it to other participants as well). If we can reach some agreements on that, it will perhaps be a step towards solving the broader problem. Would you be willing to give that a try? Meanwhile, the editing of the rest of the article would proceed with those participants who want to pursue that. Sunray (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The court process in 1946

We can not to make decisions in mediation that he the collaborator. This project is alive and may be updated. We can not bring the final solution and then to put the code. This has so far appeared to be a trial. Best to decide whether the collaborator can bring a real court . Let alone the free and independent court in Belgrade to make that decision. This year has started court proceedings and has twice convened to date. The next court session will be in December 2010 of which will be a witness to be a Partisan veteran. It is believed that the court will make a final decision in early 2011. Let's wait until then, the court's decision. The court also decides on what this is the mediation had intention. The intentions of the mediation and the court are identical.--Свифт (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That court's decision will make a fine addition to the article, but will not erase the court finding under tito, any more that that court's finding negates the us comission's findings. We report what the reliable sources say, and in this case, we must exercise caution as we know that M. has been used as a coat rack for propaganda since he first appeared in the news during WWII. There's no need to wait. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The project is indeed alive and shall certainly be updated. Our mission obviously is to see what the sources that are available to us now say.

The Serbian (or any local) government is absolutely not even close to a neutral source for controversial issues such as the Srebrenica Massacre or the Chetniks or the Ustaše, etc. The very thought is laughable. The verdict is interesting information in and of itself, but its not a real independent scholarly source and cannot be compared to university publications from e.g. Cambridge or such. Its important to remember that Serbia does by no means hold the final word on an important chapter of WWII Yugoslav history simply because Mihailović was Serbian.

Now please gents, I should certainly like to hear Sunray's response to my above post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tito's court was not independent. That court was the court of one political party the Communist Party. The judge and prosecutor were communists and partisan guerrillas during the war. Today the court was independent and free. If they happen to be ruled in favor of Mihailović. Verdict will vote that annulled the verdict of 1946.

I wrote a chapter on the trial of 1946. In which I have given basic information.

• The duration of the trial
• The names of participants
• Final word
• Part of the indictment
• Information on the liquidation and grave.

Trial of General Mihailović was held from 10 June to 15 July 1946. With the main-accused Mihailović was tried a larger group of people: Slobodan Jovanović, Božidar Purić, Stevan Moljević, Mladen Mujović, Živko Topalović, Milan Gavrilović, Momčilo Ninčić, Živan Knezevic, Radoje Knežević, Konstantin Fotić, Đuro Vilović, Radoslav Radić, Slavoljub Vranješević, Milos Glišić, Petar Živković, Dragomir Jovanović, Tanasije Dinić, Velibor Jonić, Đuro Djokić, Kosta Mušicki, Boško Pavlović, Lazar Marković and Kosta Kumanudi.

Mihailović's judges were Mihailo Đorđević (President of the Military Court), Milija Laković, Mihailo Janković, Nikola Stanković and Radomir Ilić (judges) and Todor Popadić (Secretary). The prosecutor was Miloš Minić, who was helped by Miloš Jovanović. All of them were members of the Communist Party and partisan guerrillas during the war. The chief judge Mihailo Đorđević and prosecutor Miloš Minić, were members of communist parties and the partisan movement during the war, so that the court was is not independent and free but a political and biased as in all communist countries. General Mihailović on the end of the trial was presented his closing argument:

“ I found myself in a whirlwind of events and policy ... Yet I stayed only a soldier. I am convinced that I was on the right track and I called all foreign correspondent, and even a mission of the Red Army to come to my Headquarters. Fate was mercilessly with me, when he was cast me in such a cruel storm, the worst possible that could befall a man. I wanted so much, a lot of that I have started, but the world storm they blew me and my work. ”

Of the 47 counts Miloš Minić which is read the 10 June 1946 in Belgrade, Mihailović was convicted on eight counts. The first was:

“ Is guilty because that since the beginning of the second half of 1941, and for all time of war and enemy occupation and to his control of organized armed formations Chetniks known as "Mihailovic Chetniks" and the so called Yugoslav Army in the Homeland, which aimed to armed action and terror in cooperation with the occupying forces to support the occupation and suppress an armed uprising and freedom fight of the Serbian and other peoples of Yugoslavia. ”

General Mihailović on 15 July 1946 was sentenced to death, permanent loss of political and civil rights and confiscation of all assets. The verdict was carried out after only two days. Liquidated was an on unknown place 17 July 1946. Even now nobody knows where the grave of General Mihailović is. --Свифт (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In this chapter, all the basic information. There is only one conclusion "that the court is not independent and free."--Свифт (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether the court is independent or not must be determined by the sources. Sunray (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote the source. I am not an unreasonable man. In the article are not necessary conclusions. In the Serbian version of the article that I wrote I did not put this sentence. It is important that there is harmony and balance in the article.--Свифт (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that there must be harmony and balance in the article. The inclusion (and balance) of sources would need to be agreed by the article editors. Sunray (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Свифт, with respect, all courts claim to be unfettered and free of political motives. I can point you to sources that claim that the current government and serbian people are interested in rehabilitating M.'s reputation. There's no question in my mind, for example, that the British first lauded M. excessively without knowing what was going on at the ground level, then threw him out when it become clear that the partisans were dominating the chetniks. In the US, there were pro-partisan and pro-chetnik groups trying and succeeding in swaying the media. Also, I'll point out that the word "liquidated" is a charged term, equivalent in usage to assassination. Is that the term used in your source? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that media sources are not reliable. When writing a biographical article should be kept encyclopedic style. The biggest mistakes when writing these articles it conclusion or quoting whole passages from a book, which is a conclusion of the author. In this chapter the most important to was give basic information. And to convict and judgments have the same space. You're right, better is "executed". --Свифт (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have criteria for what counts as reliable sources, but I must not have been clear enough, let me try again. M. is an interesting figure partly because of the way he was used by governments. The Brits used him as a rallying point initially, and then essentially dumped him. The US promised aid that was redirected, and later used him as a symbolic figure in opposition to the communist Tito. The Russians used him as a rallying point in support of Tito. In the US recently he's been used as anti-communist figure. And in the balkans he's been labeled by various factions as a nationalist hero or nazi sympathizer/collaborator/war criminal. In some cases trials and commissions have been held, but in no case, I think it is safe to say, have such been completely free of an agenda. In any case, we're not here to do anything more than document was reliable sources say, and I think one thing we'll have to do is try to weigh various sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Every great power has its own interests. In particular it was expressed in WW2. Their official position dictated by current interests. Also, the Yugoslav government in London during the war had its own interests. Its main strategic interest was to Yugoslavia liberate Western allies. General Mihailovic was a minister in the Yugoslav government. So that his strategic aim was to the Western allies invade Yugoslavia. That has not happened and suffered a catastrophe. In article I did not cited foreign sources and books because they particularly original official and government documents representing the interests this state. Yugoslavia and Poland have had a similar fate in WW2.--Свифт (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, esp. by "In article I did not cited foreign sources and books because they particularly original official and government documents representing the interests this state." You may believe that media sources or foreign sources are not reliable, but that opinion is not supported by policy. To be clear, for this article, I believe that academic works by professional historians published by major university presses are the most reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the universities and professors who write books. But the I most believe on the first class of archival documents. The majority of foreign authors who have written their books did not use original documents. All Partisan, Chetnik and German documents from WW2 in Yugoslavia are in the Military Archives in Belgrade [11]. So that foreign authors have had a big handicap because they did not use the original archive from Yugoslavia in time WW2.--Свифт (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

All okay?

Just checking in to make sure that mediation is progressing well, that the mediator and most of the parties are satisfactorily active, and that no action is needed to steer things back on course. Replies here will be noticed, and my e-mail and talk page are also open. Regards, AGK 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Participants have been discussing whether to close the mediation or resume editing a draft text prepared by one of the participants. My sense is that there is some support for finishing the task. Sunray (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the possibility of closing the mediation. If we do not figure out a way to work together, I'm afraid we'll return to the constant revisions, and that that will be followed by more ANI visits and blocks. A number of editors with opposing views are unlikely to walk away from the article, and thus continuing the mediation seems the best course. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This mediation has one basic problem: its not really doing anything. Its not really solving the dispute. Its sole purpose seems to be expanding the article, while the main question ("Did Mihailović collaborate?") is not in the process of being answered at all. This is why the mediation lasts a year, this is why users mostly gave up months ago.

I do NOT support closing the mediation (which is btw only User:Jean-Jacques Georges' demand). I also however, do not support the idea that expanding the article as a means of solving this conflict. To be clear, the work on the article is excellent and shall certainly not go to waste, but it is not something we should be doing here on an RfM - we should be solving the dispute. What I do support is a refocusing of our efforts on a new, well-organized debate, in which the mediator should take a far more active role than up to now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

I read several participants as wanting to continue the task we began. Jean-Jacques says that he wants to wrap this up quickly. Direktor says that he is not convinced that finishing the draft will solve the problem. I think that the more participants are able to work together the better chance there will be for a resolution. So I suggest that we continue the editing of sections of the article here. Then, if there are issues that we can resolve to make editing on these pages more harmonious, let's tackle them. One thing that is helpful in the latter respect is establishing some groundrules for how to interact with one another. I thought we had done that, but evidently not. I will suggest some groundrules in a section below. Sunray (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Relations with the Partisans

In the article did not need chapter "Relations with the Partisans." They were enemies and therefore this chapter unnecessary. In the article Winston Churchill chapter "Relations with the Germans" does not exist. In the article Adolf Hitler chapter "Relations with the British" does not exist. Also, in the article Josip Broz chapter "Relations with the Chetniks" does not exist. I can cite lots of reasons but now I will give just these examples.--Свифт (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that Churchill had much contact with Hitler. The partisans and chetniks did have much contact, and worked together in some instances although mostly they fought one another. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Like you said was there contact but very little. During most of the war are enemies. For these reasons this the chapter is unnecessary. In the article Josip Broz this chapter does not exist. Also, in the chapter is given view only one side. This chapter may be the reason for new conflicts. Because of this I believe that it is redundant and should be deleted. I mentioned articles on Churchill and Hitler, because they were enemies. In the biographical articles no need for a chapter on the enemy.--Свифт (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we do not need to have information about the relationship between M. and the partisans, and I'm not concerned with other articles. As for how it stands now, we're in mediation, and I'm open to rewording it, but for the moment we do not have a section in active editing. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Article that I wrote does not accuse partisans and therefore it is very tolerant for them. I that deliberately avoided so that was the neutral. This passage was written biased, inaccurate and confusing.

"In June 1941, prior to any Chetnik operation, Josip Broz Tito's Partisans started actively resisting the Germans, in what would become known as the Yugoslav People's Liberation War. However, while Tito favored full resistance, striking at the Germans and Italians with everything he had, Mihailović allegedly saw his strategy as wanting to "save his country with as few casualties as possible", while he believed that Tito wanted to "burn the country and the old order to the ground to better prepare it for communism". Lieutenant Colonel Živan L. Knežević, one of Mihailović's senior advisers and chief of the military cabinet for the Prime Minister of the royalist government stated that in his view "The communist Partisans wanted immediately to lead the people into an open fight against the forces of occupation although the people were completely bare-handed and the fight could not have benefited anybody... [Mihailović] thought that the uprising was premature and that, without any gain in prospect, it would have brought disproportionately great sacrifices. He was not able to convince the Partisans that an open fight could have only one result, namely, the annihilation of the population."

They mixed events and personalities in time and space. On June 1941 the first armed uprising was took place in Herzegovina, and has no connection with the Partisans. There are good scientific and historical source for this claim. I hope you understand Croatian, because this historical work by the Croatian Historical Institute. [12]--Свифт (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but trust that you can provide translations. The quote above is pretty good, I have no argument with it. Do you disagree that M. ordered an attack on the partisans in the fall of 1941 after failing to come to agreement with Tito? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement that M ordered the attack on the Partisans 1941. Partisans stated that the Chetniks started the first attack, and the Chetniks claimed was the Partisans started the first the attack. These are two opposing the claim. I am therefore wrote in the article only one sentence because it was my intention to be objective and neutral. It reads "During the uprising broke out a fratricidal war between the Partisans and the Chetniks". A lot would be a mistake if it went to prove who was first attacked. As I said both sides are accusing for the beginning of hostilities. I think that for such events should be careful and that the best solution as outlined in article "During the uprising broke out a fratricidal war between the Partisans and the Chetniks".--Свифт (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are obligated to follow reliable sources. What reliable secondary sources do you have at hand that assert the partisans attacked first? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In this book suggests that the Partisans started the first conflict [13]. The book is called "General Draža Mihailović and the general history of the Chetnik movement". It is a chapter entitled "Who is the first attacked".--Свифт (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote of the relevant paragraph in both the original and English here? Can you tell us who the author is what academic credentials he has? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Davidović, Goran and Timotijević, Miloš: Darkened Past, volume I - III, The Historical Museum city of Čačak, 2001.[14][15] This book has three volumes and was awarded by the historian.

Samardzić, Miloslav: General Draža Mihailović and general history of the Chetnik movement, volume I - V. This work represents the most comprehensive study of the biography of General Mihailovich in the world.

I - V volumes:

• I volumes
• II volumes
• III volumes
• IV volumes
• V volumes

From the review by historian Alexander Dinčić:

His long-term scientific work entitled "General Draza Mihailovic and general history of the Chetnik movement", Miloslav Samardzic started back in the 1996th when it appeared the first book under that title. The last book in the series, the fifth volumes, appeared before the readers in 2010. For fourteen years of active work, Samardzić is on the 3,500 pages was written a biography of General Draža Mihailović, Military-Chetnik detachments of the Yugoslav army, the Yugoslav army and Chetnik. This is now the most extensive work about of General Mihailović and his army. It is known that the great works was never written easily. Just to mention that these five books together have about 8,000 footnotes. --Свифт (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The books are thick -) [16]--Свифт (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Next steps in this mediation

Completing the editing of sections from the article here

This current process began with JJG completing a draft and other participants editing it collaboratively. This worked to some extent, although Nuujinn increasingly became the lone editor. I propose that we now complete this task, but with more contribution from other participants. It has been strongly stated that we need to find ways to solve more basic problems on this and other related articles. As a basis for that, I propose that we adopt some groundrules (see below).

Collaborative editing is the goal. To my mind that means working together at editing the text and reaching consensus. It seems to work best when participants actively change the wording or make concrete proposals for changes to the wording. If you are willing to participate in this, please sign below, so we are clear as to who is "in." If enough participants agree to this, I suggest that Nuujinn should select the text to edit next. Sunray (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to work on collaborative editing of text

Participants are requested to sign below with ~~~~

1. Agree.--Свифт (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree. BoDu (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree, FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The above participants seem to me to represent a variety of viewpoints about Mihailović and the Chetniks. I think that they would do a good job of editing the text. Others participants who wish to join in are welcome to do so once they have signed their agreement above and to the groundrules, below.

Nuujinn: Would you be able to suggest some text to work on next? Sunray (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've appended a section from the current article below, treating M.'s capture and trial. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Groundrules

The following groundrules have worked in other mediations to ensure that participants have a basis for collaboration. Note that you do not have to like each other, or even always see things the same way. The basis for the groundrules is respectful listening and problem-solving. We can customize these rules if we need to. But I suggest we try them. Sunray (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Focus on content rather than the contributor. Note: This is to be interpreted literally, as worded.
• Be guided by WP content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NPOV
• Commit to being as economical as possible in posts to this discussion page.
• Work towards consensus in editorial decisions.

I agree to follow these groundrules

Participants are requested to sign below with ~~~~

1. Agree.--Свифт (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree. BoDu (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree, FkpCascais (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to User:Sunray/Mediation discussions/Mihailovic

About Mihailovic

Sorry for posting up here, I'm on my iPhone and can't figure out how to scroll down in the text subwindow of the edit page :P. Anyway, as some of you folks might've deduced I'm terribly busy at the moment, but I'm also quite far from my computer and trust me when I say that all the forces of the universe stand between me and wikipedia for a few more days :). They are not however so strong as to prevent me from stating here that fkp's tirade here is entirely out of touch with sources and some very basic facts. In replying to svift, I shall have to point out that 1) Tito was the recognized allied yugoslav pm and Mihailovic a renegade by 1943; 2) by 1944 Tito was the pm recognized formally by the king as well; 3) the partisans had completely neutralized the chetniks by late 1943; 4) the red army had absolutely nothing to do with any of the above; 5) most folks here are "fighting communism" instead of editing; 6) NONE of you fellas really has any coherent picture about this war. That I have fully realized the latter only now is a bit weird I admit. I have studied this war at great length from international publications (as opposed to "national hero" folklore in Serbia) for several years. my position is entrenched in sources and is as such utterly immutable - Mihailovic collaborated. Be back soon - Direktor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.96.90 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the mediation itself, I must object on the following: the mediator has recently said that all participants agree that there was collaboration between Mihailovic and the Axis. It would be good for the mediation to decide weather Mihailovic should be considered a resistance leader, a collaborator, or neither, because it would be helpfull to understand what general tone the article should follow, and which one to avoid.

Considering Mihailovic a collaborator is very wrong because of the following reasons:

• All sides during the period of the war considered them (Mihailovic Chetniks) an resistance movement.
  • The most important Allied forces (American, British and French) considered him an Allied.
  • The most important Axis forces considered him an enemy (Germans and Ustase dominated Croatia).
  • The only important Allied forces not to consider him a allied were the Soviets, and the reason is because they supported their own rival resistance movement, the Partisans, simply because of the ideology (the Chetniks were royalists).
  • The only Axis force that efectively collaborated with Mihailovic were the Italians. That collaboration was not strong or constant.
• Mihailovic Chetniks were a resistance movement because of their nature. They were found as a resistance movement with a goal of liberating Yugoslavia of the Axis ocupation and that goal was constant throuout the war. They were very influenced by the Serbian WWI veterans, that fought with the Allies against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany, and they had a simplicist vision that this war was just a continuation of the first one. Their enthusiasm towards the Allies was evident just as their anymosity towards the Germans.
• Even the isolated acts of collaboration were donne with the intention of surviving, with the beleave that they should wait for the moment to strike against the enemy together with the other Allied forces. That feeling was strong mostly because in the WWI, the Serbian forces also had to reagroup and wait the moment to attack together with other allied forces, similar to the famous Salonika front.
• They worked under instructions that came from London, where the royal family was in exile.
• The Germans wanted to capture Mihailovic troughout the war.
• Mihailovic had severily punished all members that collaborated, considering them traitors.
• Mihailovic receved several high condecorations and was/is considered an important resistance leader. Those condecorations officialise his role as resistance leader.
• Tito, a Mihailovic enemy, that ended up victorious, has tryied for allmost 50 years to rewrite this part of the history, and has done much in carnishing Mihailoivic reputation.
• There is an enormous desire on the part of Chetnik oponents to atribute to Mihailovic many acts done by several groups that were not Mihailovic Chetniks. Exemple, other Chetnik groups that Mihailovic expelled from its movement, or the Serbian fantoche governament militia.
• All this is quite logical, and it can easily be understood trough the content of the sources.
• Not even one of the important sources consideres Mihailovic a collaborator above all.

Basically, the ignorance of this facts has made me clear that there is a strong desire to manipulate the article, so this and other related articles can be edited in acordance to the wish of certain editors, while the objectiveness is left behind. FkpCascais (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I have been trying to stress in this mediation is that we need to be careful about the words we choose. Fkp says (above): "the mediator has recently said that all participants agree that there was collaboration between Mihailović and the Axis." I did not say that. I did say that all agree that there was collaboration. I did not specify details of that collaboration as that has to be worked out between participants, with reference to sources. On the other hand, I have stressed that I have seen no basis to refer to Mihailović as "a collaborator." Such a generalization would miss the subtleties of the situation that occurred in the former Yugoslavia during the WWII. The political forces shaping the perceptions of Mihailović and the Chetniks are well understood by several participants, as evidenced by discussions on this page.Sunray (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the most important question the legitimacy of the resistance movement. Mihailovic has been officially recognized as an Ally back in October 1941 during the Serbian uprising 1941. Then in his Headquarters was sent a British SOE Captain Bill Hudson. But the real Allied recognition was given and therefore legitimate in January 1942 when he became Minister of the Army, Air Force and Navy in the Yugoslav government, which was in exile in London. The Yugoslav government had diplomatic relations with all allies. So that Mihailovic was recognized by: United Kingdom, Poland, USA, USSR, Czechoslovakia and others.--Свифт (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray, we agree on what you said. What I needed to talk about, was to be carefull about that issue because of the reasons I mentioned next, not because of you, but because of the tendency that some participants have when editing. We do need however a bit of incentive from you on the other issues, because of the balance, and that is perhaps where my criticism is about that point. FkpCascais (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above is supported by sources. Some is refuted by sources. We must following the sources. There is no question that M. was considered an ally in 1941. But by the end of 1942 the British had turned their back on M., because he was unable able to control the Chetniks, many of whom participated in acts of collaboration, either to survive, to hide from the axis (particularly the Germans), or to further their goal of eliminating the partisans. Reliable sources also show that M. misled the allies as to his intentions, his capabilities, and his actions. Regarding "Mihailovic had severily punished all members that collaborated, considering them traitors", I have seen no evidence that that is supported by any reliable source (or any source, period). M. did receive honors, but he was also a puppet in allied propaganda, and in propaganda of partisan sympathizers and in royalist sympathizers. The Germans did have bounty on his head for most of the war, but Germans on the ground also negotiated with him, and that higher ups did not endorse these negotiations does not mean they did not happen. If the "they" in "They worked under instructions that came from London, where the royal family was in exile" are the Chetniks, well, all I can say about that is that the sources don't support that conclusion at all. Chetniks were never well organized, the YGE did not provide much direction, and what little was provided was largely ignored. In terms of acts of resistance, there's not much there--some disruption of rail lines, some aid to allied pilots, but apparently only when it suited M.'s purposes. And it is not supportable to argue that M. was a leader of the Chetniks overall, but was not responsible for the actions of the groups of Chetniks which did collaborate and participate in acts of mass murder. My take is that M. was not responsible for much of the collaboration and murders because he was a figurehead, and not really in control of the Chetniks after suffering defeat at the hands of the partisans in late 1941 after having attacked them. Yes, Tito ultimately won Yugoslavia, and yes, he used M. as a scapegoat. But after the revolution, it is equally true that various ethnic factions used and continue to use M. as a tool for their own nationalistic purposes. That a tattoo on the arm of a basketball player can cause controversy at a national level is evidence enough that passions still run very high. But as it is not supported that he was a collaborator over all, is it not supported that he was an active resistance leader who fought the axis at every turn. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mihailovic was a minister and member of the Yugoslav government in exile in London. This government was had legitimacy. She was acknowledged of all the allies and even the Soviet Union. Mihailovic was a minister from January 1942 to June 1944. In this period he was legitimate and recognized as an ally. During the entire war in his Headquarters were the Allied mission. The first mission was came in October 1941. Last Allied Mission was left the Headquarters in February 1945. Tito not was won in the war but the Red Army occupied Serbia in October 1944 which determined the fate of postwar Yugoslavia and bringing Tito to power. On the eve of the invasion the Red Army in the summer of 1944 Mihailovic was dismissed from his position as Minister. Then was began the negotiations between the new Prime Minister Ivan Subasic and Tito. These negotiations was began under the most pressure from allies of Great Britain and the USSR. These negotiations have given permit to the Red Army entered in Yugoslavia in October 1944. Previous Yugoslav government of Prime Minister Bozidar Purića whose minister army was Mihailovic was not for solution that the Red Army occupy Yugoslavia. That is why this government is replaced. They were the Western allies to occupy Yugoslavia.--Свифт (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of that is accurate enough. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will agree with what I said because it all makes sense. This is real politics. The post-war fate of Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe have not solve the government in exile and the resistance movements, but the great powers or the Big Three (Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill).--Свифт (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)