Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive7

Sources 2

I've been combing through some of the sources for data relevant to Mihailović and the issue of collaboration. I'll be posting any relevant quotes. Bare in mind that this is but a fraction of the massive detailed accounts that exists of such actions, since I'm pretty much forced to write all this down by hand (and I'm rather busy lately, both on and off Wiki). Most, if not all of this is still available at Google Books, I think, so any one of you guys can review the matter at your discretion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On Mihailović's orders, one of their [Herzegovinian Chetniks] political leaders, Milan Šantić, proposed through Sinčić that the Croatian army [the military of the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia] cooperate with the Chetniks in operations against the Partisans in northern Dalmatia. (...)
[Note 53.] See especially Sinčić's report of January 2 1943, in Micr No. T-501, Roll 265, Frs 503-6. The Chetnik offer to cooperate with the Croatian army was apparently a part of Mihailović's plan for a "march on Bosnia", formulated in the closing weeks of 1942 and issued as Directive No.1 on January 2 1943, to become effective at a date to be determined later. (...) Šantić also asserts that Mihailović fully approved of Chetnik collaboration with the Italians. Micr. No. T-501, Roll 265, Frs. 1026-30.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.261 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

The British began to doubt the value of Mihailović and the Chetniks as their allies in Yugoslavia. They began to realize that Mihailović was less a fighter against the Axis powers than a collaborator with them against the Partisans.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.231 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

Tomasevic... FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

LoL. Either you finally provide someone other than you who criticized this acclaimed author who specialized exclusively in this subject, or kindly stop with the incessant basless and unfounded attacks. Frankly, its hard to find anyone who reviewed his work and didn't praise him for complete and utter adherence to primary sources. In fact, I've taken the time to list some of them above. Your negative comments on this acclaimed expert actually celebrated for his unbiased approach are completely and utterly baseless, and until you can find someone at all relevant who supports them you should not repeat them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I stay behind I say. He is not neutral, and his claims about the Chetniks are not supported by any other historians. Anyway, you say "celebrated for his unbiased approach", can you source that? Celebrated as unbised by who? Mihailovic´s "bbf" Tito? FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what you (or I) say, regardless of whether we "stand behind it" or not. You should stop trying to create an entirely false impression of this author that, by your own admission, is based on ethnic prejudice.

Your comments on this scholar are to be disregarded entirely, as they would be in any serious scientific discussion. His work is acclaimed as the very best on this subject, this is why I quote him. His series of three volumes (two published in full, the third interrupted because of the author's death) on the subject of WWII Yugoslavia is by far the most complete and detailed work I could find. Did you even see one of his books? Its HUGE. Its the man's life work as a Stanford University history professor. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I´m not disregarding him, as person, but regarding Mihailovic and the Chetniks, his work is evidently more tendentious than of other historians. You should preferably use other sources. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... we are not even talking about him "as a person". I don't know him "as a person", do you? And frankly I don't care if he's "dismissed as a person", feel free to do so. We are talking about him as an expert on this subject. As for his "tendentiousness" - again, find someone other than yourself that thinks so.

@"Anyway, you say 'celebrated for his unbiased approach', can you source that? Celebrated as unbised by who? Mihailovic´s 'bbf' Tito?"

Ha. Not quite. You will find the reviews here (You were already informed of this [1], so I assumed a link was unnecessary.) e.g.:

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
Eric Gordy, Clark University

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is not a problem, but regarding his claims about Chetniks and Mihailovic, they are quite unique. Please find other further historians that confirm his claims. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

These are NOT "claims". These quotes are 100% scientific proof positive. They do not need to be confirmed additionally since they're based on, and supported by, listed primary sources. These sources are most certainly very far from "unique", nor should your unfounded claim that they are "unique" be taken for granted.

I already did post additional authors. Four of them on this page alone. More than enough, I think, to prove my point beyond the stage where continued user disagreement alone can be counted as "counter-sources" (since everyone seems to have been at that interesting stage up to this point). But, if you insist: --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is little doubt that Mihailović knew about these arrangements [the Chetnik arrangements with the Germans], that he regarded them as the lesser of two evils and that he stayed in the background in order openly to maintain his anti-German attitude, while tacitly hoping to gain an advantage in his primary aim of defeating the Partisans.

— Roberts, Walter R., Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945, Duke University Press, 1987, p.120 ISBN 0822307731

Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Fkp.

@Sunray, are we at last in agreement that the general statement "Mihailović collaborated" is factual and correct, or should I continue to scan for source quotes when I find the time? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I said thank you for providing sources that are not Tomasevic. Again, is this last your best source to link Mihailovic with collaboration and that is not Tomasevic´s? It does mention some "arrangements"... FkpCascais (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration has been conclusively sourced. I do not believe I can ever satisfy you so I'll only be talking to others on the need for additional sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Conclusively sourced"? You know, "Arrangements" can perfectly mean cease-fire, for exemple... FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Arrangements" with an enemy military are the very definition of collaboration. And why are we talking about only one of the half-a-dozen sources, and only one of the quotes from them? This is like trying to prove evolution to Kirk Cameron. I honestly get the feeling that if I brought Draža Mihailović in person yelling "Ja sam kolaborator!" ("I'm a collaborator!" :)) at the top of his voice it would not be enough to satisfy. I had long since concluded that no amount of evidence will create a full consensus, but luckily (and logically), that is not required (WP:CONS).

One's baseless unsupported disagreement, no matter how persistent, is not an argument.

I think it may be becoming obvious why I characterized this discussion as incredibly frustrating... Sunray, your opinion on the issue as mediator? Would you say that this is sufficient in light of the complete absence of any opposing source? Or is it necessary to continue to scan for source quotes? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all remain calm and civil, there aren't any kittens that need rescuing from a burning house here. FkpCascais, one reason I started the subpage with the quotes on it was to collect relevant source material in a single location to ease discussion. If you look here, you'll see that Cohen, Ramet, and Roberts all to one extent or another acknowledge Mihailovic's opportunistic collaboration (which is not to deny that Mihailovic engaged in resistance activities, too, and I fully admit there's a lot of grey out there.). I've asked you numerous times to provide sources showing the Mihailovic did not collaborate and ones showing that he engaged in open conflict, perhaps you might spend some time tracking those down? New sources are always welcome. And if you have issues with Tomasevic as a source, perhaps you should explain exactly what your concerns are--it seems to me that you have problems with him as a source, but I don't recall any explanation of what those concerns are. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do recall. On Talk:Draža Mihailović User:FkpCascais explained a number of times that he suspects this source because the person is (reportedly) of Croatian American ancestry (reportedly, I'm not even sure, his name could be Serbian or Bosniak or Montenegrin just as easily). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, Direktor, but it would probably be best to let FkpCascais speak for himself. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again to bring the main issue a bit closer to closure. Sunray, given the sources presented here and at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic/sources_relating_to_collaboration, would you say that the inclusion of the general statement that this person "collaborated" can be considered sourced? Or would you say that we need additional quotes? While I can agree that the labels "collaborator" and "traitor" may be too POV for the article, I believe that avoiding the statement that he "collaborated" would be POV in itself considering the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have sufficient quotes for now. The statement on collaboration seems fine to me, when properly qualified. JJG has re-drafted the article and covers the issue, see below, "New draft of article." I will be interested in participants' reactions. Sunray (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Tomasevic:

• As I repeatedly said on the DM talk page, I had read the book in Serbo-Croatian version that is found in my parents house. I read the book, Chetniks, in the late 1990s, and I remember, even then, about having noteced about the way how he concentrated on the entire book to basically subtily, and sometimes not so, accuse the Chetniks and Mihailovic of everything possible. The perception of this is absolutely clear, and since I had read some other books in that period about the subject, more precisely about the pre-war Yugoslav politics, and the WWII, that became even more obvious. The trouth is that even him, Tomasevic, is carefull in many situations trying not to exagerate so his work doesn´t loose credibility, but his tendency is absolutely clear, specially because he evidently concentrates on the (possible) negative aspects of them, resuming and ignoring completely the positive ones. All of this is understandable if we honestly see that he does perceve the situation, as much as you deny it direktor, in Croatian POV.
• Regarding his nationality, he is not American-Croatian, or whatever direktor said, but he is Croatian from the Croatian Dalmatia, curiously same as direktor. :) Please don´t charge me of racism or something similar towards Croatia, or the Croats. I like Croatia, I have many Croatian friends, I had a beautifull Croatian girlfriend (I still miss her..:), and my family has a house in the Croatian Adriatic coast. I´ve been there many times, in many other places too, and the last time I´ve been there was around 8 years ago (around 2002). But, lets be honest, the perception that Croatians have about Serbs in general, and specially its history, is completely influenced by centuries of propagandas and missinformation, so is completely biased, and the vice-versa is exactly the same (Serbs about Croatians). So, being Tomasevic Croatian, it is inevitable that he might be influenced when analising a Serbian monarchic movement, that btw, any Croatian has all the reasons to dislike. Chetniks and Mihailovic defended the monarchy (Serbian, and consequently Yugoslav Karađorđević dinasty) that was almost absolutely rejected and disliked by all sectors of Croatian society. They defended a centralised (Belgrade) governament, very much oposed by all Croatian parties. They fought the Independent State of Croatia, they were the major internal enemy of (Croatian) Tito... So, again, lets be realistic, what possible reasons would any Croatian possibly have to simpatise with them? Also, it can be even noteced in some participants opinion here on WP on the monarchic Yugoslav period, so tipical, regarding it as "Serbian nationalistic nonsence"... Resumingly, even if we consider Tomasevic a non-nationalist Croatian, it is inevitable and realistic that he has no reasons what so ever to have any feelings towards the movement, but many to dislike them. Also, I remember not seing many (or any) words in his work about the good things that the movement did, also a sign about the inevitable tendentioness. I don´t disregard him as historian, but it is clear that there is a conflict of interess regarding him analising a Serbian monarchic movement.
• Regarding WP, and the WP:SOURCE, as seen, many of his acusations, specially the most hard ones, are unique, and I have not seen any other independent historians to agree with them. If there are, as some participants claim, please use them instead, because I do feel that it would be correct, or unfair not to, apply Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Also, there is a much better defended claim if you have some other author making some claims, because if not, we risk having a constant discrediting of the claims on the side of Serbian editors because of it, so if neutral authors are found, that would facilitate much more the credibility and defence of them.

Resumingly, I feel that is unfair to use Tomasevic as source. Since the oponent participants claim that the collaboration is so well sourced, and that everything is so clear and there are no doubts among historians, I recomend to use those other sources, that would be benefitial for entire project. I´m not exactly sure if I was as clear as I wanted to be, but for any questions, I´m on your entire disposition. FkpCascais (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is just getting silly. Its like I'm talking with creationists - if a source contradicts Fkp's baseless preconceptions about this person unfounded in any reference whatsoever, the source simply has to be wrong. In my experience, with the sources the way they are any normal discussion would've been over a loooong time ago. This person is a nationalist "sacred cow".

Fkp, you can write an entire article about how you think this person is not a reliable source. You can write a book and publish it in volumes. The fact is, he is not only reliable, he's among the BEST sources available, and unless you find one of his professional peers that thinks as you do, I can't see the point of this. As for the statements on Mihailović, they're not his opinions, they're quoted directly from primary sources and records the man spent his whole professional life studying.
In short: no, he's not unreliable, his statements ("accusations"?) are not "unique" simply because you claim them to be [2][3][4], and your nationalist ethnic prejudice against non-Serbs will be reported on WP:AN/I should you once again attempt to attack the credibility of established experts on such basis. CANVASSING on this issue shall not help you either.

"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University

"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
-Choice Magazine

"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books

"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
-American Historical Review

"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers

"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
-Slavic Review

...etc. This person is not only "reliable", during his lifetime he was actually among the most prominent experts on these events. In fact, he is the only one to publish an extensive detailed professional work exclusively on the subject of the Chetniks and Draža Mihailović (the massive and "monumental" The Chetniks) after years of research, so one might call him the Chetniks expert. And I really doubt he particularly "disliked" them or their leaders.

User:FkpCascais, before you post anything more on this subject, I challenge you to please find any peer review of Tomasevich's professional opus that has anything at all negative to say. Anything at all. I don't think anyone here is prepared to discuss your "review" of Tomasevich, seeing as how you did not even read his work, and are basing your attack on his credibility exclusively on the fact that he is challenging your own preconceptions about Draža Mihailović. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, anything further to be said on this matter would need to be properly researched and documented. Until we have that, would the two of you be willing to leave this and work with the other participants in determining areas of agreement in the article and, where there is no agreement, proposing alternatives? Sunray (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I was asked to answer this, so I did. I am also avaliable to further explain, if needed. Nothing more, this is not up to me anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

May I say that Direktor's generally condescending tone, and his tendency to stuff everything into quotation boxes to make it look more valid, are particulartly irritating ?

Anyway, regarding Tomasevich, as I say below, I have not read him entirely so I don't want to be judgemental about him. However, what I could see on google books might justify PKPCascais's claims about the general tone of the book. If this is justified, what Tomasevich says might be taken with all due precautions ("Tomasevich says that...") although this can be done for all historians. The tone of his work does not mean, however, that all the facts he presents are unreliable.

But it should be noted that Tomasevich also calls the Chetniks a resistance groupe (example page 157 : "the break between the two resistance groups in Bosnia was only a matter of time"). He also writes that some Chetnik resistance acts were attributed to the Partisans by the BBC (page 316), etc.

Regarding the fact that Mihailovic did fail to act against collaboration policies by Chetnik groups, and occasionally condoned them, I think this is beyond dispute. But labeling him, above everything, a collaborator (he never ceased to be considered an enemy by the Germans) and a traitor (traitor to whom ? considering that he betrayed the King because he was against Tito is utter nonsense) is completely inadequate. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that use of the word traitor is not appropriate. That accusation does not appear in most sources, any that I can recall. Mihailovic was a royalist, a nationalist, and intensely pro-serbian, and I think the sources show that his allegiance lay in those directions. And I agree that that he should not be labeled "above everything" a collaborator. I think you are correct in pointing out that some acts of resistance committed by the chetniks were attribute to the Partisans, particularly at towards the end of the war, but the same can be said in reverse at the beginning of the war, when Partisan actions were attributed to the Chetniks by western intelligence agencies and press unaware of the existence of the Partisans. You are also correct that the German high command did not trust him, and that he saw the Germans and Italians as enemies. But I think there is also no doubt that the sources show that Mihailovic engaged in opportunistic acts of collaboration with the Axis in order to further his campaign against the Partisans.

I also agree that in his tone, Direktor might get on the nerves of some editors, but that's not really of import here. I do think we all should try to be as civil as possible in these discussions, and would suggest that everyone consider their words carefully before posting anything, so as to not inflame discussions. It seems to me that most of us are not really that fair apart, and reasonable compromise is within reach, if we can all agree to focus on the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, you say "Direktor might get on the nerves of some editors, but that's not really of import here", well that user just acused me of "Nationalistic ethnic prejudice", insisted on it at Sunray talk page, all this because I aswered to you why I considered Tomasevic not to be apropriate as source for this case. I gave you there a detailed explanation about my reasons, and whoever can agree, or not, with them, but that should never allow other users to insult me! I gave him the chance to explain himself and he ignored it, further attacking and intentionally giving phalse ideas, I asked him for evidence, he gave me a comment of mine from the last year, I gave him the oportunity to apologise, he didn´t. That shouldn´t happend and I shouldn´t be pressured not to comment on a certain author if I feel like, specially when asked, as in this case. I saw his excuses (direktors) and they just add wood to the fire, and I´m also very disapointed with Sunray for having double standards about comments removal and not being coherent on this. This was all very unnecessary, but some people just want me to stick with the insult and take it! Shamefull! FkpCascais (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, there's a mirror, I'm sure, in your bathroom, my suggestion is you go take a long look into it. It takes two to tango, and I think you, too, have been harsh in your accusations against other editors. Also, for what it's worth, when you say "coherent" I believe what you mean to say is "consistent".

Your objections to Tomasevich are based on remembrances over a decade old, and consist primarily of the assertion that as a croatian, he cannot be considered reliable: "it is inevitable and realistic that he has no reasons what so ever to have any feelings towards the movement, but many to dislike them". Your view (and mind you, I'm characterizing the view, not you) could be considered racist. If you want to refute Tomasevich, go to the library, check out some books, and bring some references here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can allways object to my opinion, but they are not racist, and they don´t give anybody the right to insult me. And btw, you should stop leaving me "suggestions" around (you did on other pages as well), maybe it is you, that should step of the horse and give suggestions only to people that actually care what a person that doesn´t keep his word thinks. Please refrain from talking anything like that ever again, and speak to me only if you have something regarding the debating issues, otherwise please keep your pretentious sugestions to yourself..."Nuujinn´s bathroom suggestions"... FkpCascais (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you, but please note I'm not saying you are a racist--what I am saying that your assertion that Tomasevich is not a reliable source because he's croatian is a view that could be considered racist. I think that's a fair statement. And you certainly don't have to take anyone's advice. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also apologise to you as well, for giving you such a harsh unswer, but the trouth is that I hate to repeat myself. I´ll say it once more:

• 1 - I was asked (by you) to give my reasons for the objection on Tomasevic.
• 2 - Knowing the reaction that some users might have, I even begin by askeing politely not to confuse my explanation with any sort of racism (that includes obviously acusations of ethnic prejudice). Obviously, I predicted it.
• 3 - Not knowing how well the situation is clear to everybody here, I started the explanation by analising the possible reasons why the two nationalities are not very compatible to analise eachother. That is not "ethnic prejudice".
• 4 - I mentioned also some policies applied for these cases.
• 5 - I was acused of ethnic prejudice for it by one user.
• 6 - Everybody failed to sanction it. Explanations for it, or apologies were also not given.

Now, should some internet mediation be more important than the integrity? I don´t think so. If the participants that disagree with me are being allowed to insult me, well how good exemple that is for this, or future mediations here on WP? Nuujinn, please be sure that if I ask you something, and if I have from you a responce that maybe I don´t agree with, the last thing you´ll expect from me is to insult you. I don´t mind criticism, but nobody has the right to tell that I have to take insults because I have a certain opinion. Also, I don´t think that you need to defend too much other paricipants from me, because I was allways been, without any exeption, reported for every minimal reason I gave, so don´t give the phalse impression that the situation is equal and fair. Now, a view that Tomasevic has a conflict of interess while analising the Chetniks is not racist, and it can´t be considered racist. Anyway, there is a number of alternative answers to that if you disagree with, but insults should not be included in any. If I used insults in every ocasion I disagree with some opinion, how would that look? This is not about the discussion, or about the opinion of each one of us, this has to do with minimal respect that we should have for WP and all the participants here. And also Sunray, your judgment on how I am Serb (???), so because of that I am entitled to hear this sorts of insults from a Croatian (???), has nothing logical on it... FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one have had enough of this. From now on, all unreferenced attempts to discredit sources should be completely ignored. I recommend a simple "radical" rule: all non-sourced statements should be completely disregarded. Nobody anywhere cares in the slightest about whatever you (or I) have to say about acclaimed authors, or about your (or mine) "reviews" of professional publications. I'm still having vague hopes that this is a serious scientific discussion.

These sort of outbursts and essays are extremely detrimental to the mediation, as they sap energy and time, diverting attention from actual discussion. Not to mention that its annoying to have to go in circles and repeat the same things for the fiftieth time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I would be going to say how much I had enough of certain users that just go around posting comments in which every sentence is full of crying, propaganda, bad faith and blatant lies, I would probably occupy this entire page. Some lye about sources, other users comments, whatever reasons... Should I add that I would be recomending another "radical" rule, that is expelling from the mediation the slightest untrouth comment, or personal offensive remark that somebody makes. It would also include making phalse statements and "situation analisys" to admins and other participants here. Btw, please don´t call Nuujinn "nobody".

Regarding the issue here, we all know the version and the tendency some users defend about the subject we are analising. Isn´t it strange how same users so strongly only deffend Tomasevic? It happend here, and it already happend on the talk page, agressivness included in both times! Some even try insistently to missinform about his nationality just to avoid any possibility of analising him. Is he that important to their POV? Waren´t they claiming that he doesn´t make any exceptional claims, and that what he transmits in his work is widely accepted? Why is he important so much then if, alledgedly, so many historians agree? Is it because his claims are obviously exceptional and controversial, very favorable just to one side here? I don´t know, but makes me think... FkpCascais (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, Direktor didn't call anybody nobody. Tomasevic's nationality is irrelevant, and his claims are hardly 'exceptional and controversial'. I think we should all calm things down a bit and take a look at JJG's draft. Any ideas on how to proceed? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn´t, but I was unswering to you, and I think that a good way of having this discussion would be to avoid the missleading use of some "us" or "nobody´s". Anyway, we disagree on this issue, but I agree with the JJG approach to it, which basically consists in mentioning who says what, and leaving the readers a more complete information, that way, avoiding us the work to give, or not, credits/support to one, or other, historian. Can we agree on this, as diplomatic solution for it? FkpCascais (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples of use of sources

File:Document from William Donovan, head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).jpg

Document from William Donovan, head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), stating that his intelligence unit in Yugoslavia personally observed Partisans attacking Chetniks while the latter were fighting Germans. Partisan-German collaboration never took place, however, while Chetnik collaboration with the Germans was widespread.

What does this document say? And what says under the image at Chetniks article? Exactly the oposite! FkpCascais (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have many good images from the Mihailovic article from the Serbian wikipedia, but curiously, here, we only have the acusational pictures. See: [5]. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, the Serbian Wikipedia is not at all neutral in approaching this matter and should not be taken as an example no more than the Croatian or (heaven forbid :) Bosniak projects.

1) This image is completely unrelated to the subject. It does not mention Draža Mihailović.

2) This document (assuming its legitimate) needs to be published in a secondary source before it can be used.

3) We know today that most of the statements in it are blatantly wrong (A. the Partisans with cca. 800,000 men faar outnumbered the Chetniks in 1944, B. those Chetniks that did not defect were immediately wiped out by the Partisans after the war. Two-year civil war?)

4) Whatever those people saw while in Mihailović's influence is highly suspect. "Witness accounts" from those sent to Tito's HQ (such as those of Major Churchill) were equally subject to suspicion by later scholars.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why you posted if you didn´t answered even one of the questions... I changed the image, so now includes the comment that is found on Chetniks article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Sunray, aren´t you going to express yourself about the fact that these kind of missuse of sources has been done by an active participant here? Or, since it was him, it is excusable? Can I also use whatever source to say whatever I feel?

P.S.:What about the template? FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my exposition of another exemple of missuse of sources has been considered "personal attack", because I directed it towards the author of the phalse statement on the source, I´ll rephrase it:

@Direktor, since I see that was you who edited the missinforming comment under the document [6], could you please explain to us how did you get to edit the comment in the sence obviously oposite to the content of the document. Please, explain, so your way of editing gets clearer to other users that may not be so familiarised with your habitual editing procedure. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read my post. This image is not a "source" at all. I repeat:

• This is off-topic, and this is the last post I make on this subject. We were making some progress on the main issue, and should avoid sidetracking the discussion.
• This document (assuming its legitimate) needs to be published in a secondary source before it can be used.
• We know today that most of the statements in it are blatantly wrong (A. the Partisans with cca. 800,000 men faar outnumbered the Chetniks in 1944, B. those Chetniks that did not defect were immediately wiped out by the Partisans after the war. Two-year civil war?)
• Whatever those people saw while in Mihailović's influence is highly suspect, even if it were oublished. "Witness accounts" from those sent to Tito's HQ (such as those of Major Churchill) were equally subject to suspicion by later scholars.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn´t answered the question. Also, this is not off-topic, since it is regarding the Chetniks. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that until we manage to come to some consensus regarding the Mihailović article, there's not much point in getting into the article on the Chetniks. Others may disagree, but personally I'm finding it a bit difficult to keep up with all of the issues on this single page. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem I exposed here is specific, and not only related with Chetniks article, but with the use of sources in all related articles, including Mihailovic. Anyway, it is also a source, isn´t it? It was treated as it was... FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If by "it", you mean the copy of the Donovan document, it's a primary source, which we are supposed to avoid so as to not be engaged in original research. We have plenty of good 2ndary sources, we should stick to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the issue I am complaining should not be tolerated, in any case. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems highly possible that the Donovan "document" is a fake. No sources at all refer to it as far as I can see. On the contrary, Musulin, the OSS representative at Mihailović HQ was withdrawn in February 1944, the beginning of a six-month period when there was no official Allied presence at Mihailović HQ whatsoever [7]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, if this document is cited by a reliable secondary source - its usable, if not - its not. As things stand this image is not a "source" at all and cannot be "misrepresented". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I repeat here what I've said before: Given the number and variety of sources and points of view, we will have to agree on the application of WP:Undue, to wit:

Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".

To aid in this we have a redraft of the article prepared by Jean-Jacques Georges to refer to (see below, "New draft of article"). Sunray (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is evident that the User:Jean-Jacques Georges' drafts do not represent the sources fairly with regard to the evidence for the collaboration of Draža Mihailović. The fact that he has worked hard is immaterial. Most if not all of us have expended huge effort during the course of this dispute.

You are welcome to suggest other sources. We will agree on them by consensus. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of Draža Mihailović's collaboration is the main and primary cause of this dispute. I believe it is paramount that this primary issue be resolved conclusively in this mediation prior to the start of the work on the new draft. Starting work now is practically pointless, since the original point of contention has not been settled. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How do these comments square with the discussion above? All participants were alerted to JJG's earlier draft and AFAIK he has been reflecting the discussion in his work. What specifically is it that you object to in his current draft? He deals with the collaboration issue. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording, and sources, and I can ask other participants whether they agree. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)