Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pavle Đurišić: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:41, 10 September 2012 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,385 editsm WikiProject Serbia← Previous edit Revision as of 17:59, 10 September 2012 edit undoAntidiskriminator (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers58,480 edits Moved discussion: new sectionNext edit →
Line 359: Line 359:
::::Insisting on using the source which was found unreliable on RSN and at the same time proclaiming any source which does not support certain POV as unreliable is not constructive.--] (]) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC) ::::Insisting on using the source which was found unreliable on RSN and at the same time proclaiming any source which does not support certain POV as unreliable is not constructive.--] (]) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Answers at RSN "are not official policy" and your misinterpretations of Peacemaker's comments do not help. The sole review, supposedly decidedly against it, agrees that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages". I'm not the one copy-pasting numerous unreliable sources in many sections to support a "certain POV". Also determining whether the sources and their publishers are reliable, scholarly, academic, and peer-reviewed is not a sin. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC) :::::Answers at RSN "are not official policy" and your misinterpretations of Peacemaker's comments do not help. The sole review, supposedly decidedly against it, agrees that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages". I'm not the one copy-pasting numerous unreliable sources in many sections to support a "certain POV". Also determining whether the sources and their publishers are reliable, scholarly, academic, and peer-reviewed is not a sin. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

== Moved discussion ==

{{Moved discussion from|Talk:Pavle_Đurišić#WikiProject_Serbia|2=Moved to present list of reasons for not meeting A-class criteria at one review. Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.] (]) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)}}
:After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:
:# It is '''not well-written''': There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
:# It is '''not comprehensive''' because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
:# It is '''not neutral''' violates WP:NPOV because
:## there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
:## It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
:# It is '''not stable'''.
:# '''Based on unreliable source'''. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN
:<u>I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.</u>--] (]) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:59, 10 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pavle Đurišić article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
Featured articlePavle Đurišić is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 18, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 23, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
August 28, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pavle Đurišić article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBosnia and Herzegovina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconPavle Đurišić is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary historyWikiProject icon
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
Additional information:
Note icon
This article has passed an A-Class review.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMontenegro Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSerbia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconYugoslavia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconPavle Đurišić is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Proposal for assessment as A-Class

Proposal withdrawn:Redundant

G'day all, You will be pleased to note that Pavle Đurišić was recently assessed as A-Class by WikiProject:Military History. I propose that this article be promoted to A-Class in WikiProjects Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. I request the support of two uninvolved editors from each WikiProject, in accordance with the general A-class assessment criteria. Please discuss under the relevant WikiProject subsection.

WikiProject Yugoslavia

WikiProject Montenegro

WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina

I think that article meets all of the A-class criteria, and was promoted as such in the WP Military History, so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be promoted in the WP Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Wustenfuchs 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia

There are improvement opportunities presented in my review at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Serbia/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić but I think that this article meets A-class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:
  1. It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
  2. It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
  3. It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because
    1. there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
    2. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
  4. It is not stable.
  5. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN
I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw this request. It is clear from the lack of interest that either the WikiProjects in question have limited interest in having a proper assessment process for A-Class (similar to that used by MILHIST), or lack the numbers of users to conduct the assessments. In one case the process (with only one WikiProject Serbia editor that showed a great deal of interest) was excruciating and largely unproductive. The article in question is now a Featured Article. I do not intend to repeat this experiment with the WikiProjects in question, and will stick to GA, MILHIST A-Class and FA in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

July uprising

Solved:Information that Đurišić participated in July uprising against Italians added to the article.

The role of Đurišić in July uprising is still eluded.

Milovan Đilas says that "DjuriSic had distinguished himself during the July uprising in the battle at Berane, where the worst fighting took place." link.

If Đurišić's enemy (Milovan Đilas) admits that he had distinguished role in the worst fighting during uprising then his role was really significant and claims that Đurišić was "... a hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" are not mistake of biased book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

it's not 'eluded'. Please look on wiktionary for the meaning. I hope you mean that 'the article does not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising'. I would usually question the use of Djilas, given his first person involvement, but given he is unlikely to have written anything positive about the enemy unless it was incontrovertible, I think he is an acceptable source given he corroborates Kurapovna. Thank you, I will add him as a source and add the 'distinguished role' information. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are right. Đilas was indeed involved in the events. It is better to use Kurapovna and "hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" expression instead of "Captain Đurišić distinguished himself".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me. I have used Djilas as his language is neutral ie he used the word 'distinguished' and if he says it, then he certainly must have done that. Kurapovna's language is unencyclopedic and potentially biased/POV, ie whose 'hero' was he, and why? Having 'distinguished' himself does not beg that question. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that Djilas shold be used instead of Kurapovna if it is true that he captured Berane from Italians. But that issue is subject of another discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

The text of the article says:

  • In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. and
  • A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.

Does it mean that Đurišić was subordinated to the communists during this uprising? If not maybe it should be clarified because the existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry for not responding to this earlier. It doesn't say that at all, please re-read it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I re-read it. It still says that:
  1. In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists.
  2. the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated
I am afraid that readers could be mislead that uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources say what they say. I haven't misrepresented them, or omitted anything from them that is relevant to this question. If you are aware of a WP:RS that makes it clear that Djurisic wasn't ever subordinated to the communists, or that clarifies this issue so the supposed implication is dealt with, please share. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Question: What impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?
Answer: That uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.
This article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a source which says that he was one of the organizers of the uprising: "Histoire Du Peuple Serbe" - Dusan-T Batakovic, p.323 "il fut l'organisateur de l'insurrection contre les occupants Italiens en 1941
Based on above mentioned explanations I propose not to mislead the readers anymore and to clarify that Djurisic was not subordinated to the communists being only a participant in their uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Commemoration controversy?

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There are two sentences which explain why this memorial should not be constructed:

  1. The Association of War Veterans of the National Liberation Army (SUBNOR) objected to the construction of the monument saying that Đurišić was a war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of many colleagues of the veterans association and 7,000 Muslims.
  2. The following month the Montenegrin government forbade the unveiling of the monument stating that it "caused public concern, encouraged division among the citizens of Montenegro, and incited national and religious hatred and intolerance."

This section has title which includes the word controversy. But there is nothing controversial in this section. A group of people wanted to erect memorial in Berane dedicated to Đurišić. Why? Nobody knows. There is no explanation why this memorial should be constructed. It is carefully explained only why it should not be constructed. I apologize if I am wrong, but I don't think that position of people who wanted to construct this memorial is presented according to WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't make hide nor hair of the Google Translate of the glas javnosti article, I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
He "spent some of his youth at Berane" and "had also established his wartime headquarters there". Those reasons are given in the Glas Javnosti article. The article also says that the initiative came "from the part of the Serbian nation which has had to endure communist crimes that began 1941 and that have continued to this day." I don't know if that's Scekic's (head of the committee for the memorial) reasoning or just sensationalism on the part of the newspaper. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
another reason we might want to take care with the glas javnosti article is that they chose to carefully crop the picture of Djurisic to remove General Biroli... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not propose to progress this comment into an edit unless a WP:RS for the motivation of the people who planned the memorial is located. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NOVA's proposal

Solved:Information about NOVA's proposal added to the article
One Montenegrin parliamentary political party (New Serb Democracy) supported building a memorial to Đurišić and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland because they were leaders of the 13. July uprising who fought for King Petar and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during WWII.(NOVA predlaže da država podigne spomenik Pavlu Đurišiću - Vijesti online.)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What is Vijesti, and who was the parliamentarian? And can you get a disinterested sr-5 en WP translation of it, unless PRODUCER agrees that is exactly what is says and that both Vijesti is NPOV and the parliamentarian is not obviously biased. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Vijesti is newspaper. The source is not Vijesti. The source is Goran Kikovic, historian and member of the Main Committee of the New Serb Democracy who gave statement to the Montenegrin News Agency (MINA). His statement to MINA was published by Vijesti.
Translation of the title: "NOVA predlaže da država podigne spomenik Pavlu Đurišiću" - New Serb Democracy proposes that state should build a monument to Pavle Đurišić. In the rest of the text there is an explanation why: “Zašto se novcem iz budžeta i lokalnih samouprava ne bi podigli spomenici vođama Trinaestojulskog ustanka 1941.godine, Pavlu Đurišiću, Baju Stanišiću, Jakovu Kusovcu i drugim oficirima i vojnicima Jugoslovenske vojske u otadžbini, koji su nakon tog datuma do kraja rata nastavili borbu za oslobođenje zemlje pod vođstvom kralja Petra i Vlade kraljevine Jugoslavije”, naveo je Kiković. - which is basicaly what I wrote above: "Why wouldn't we build (financed with money from budget and local municipalities) monuments to the leaders of uprising of 13 July, Pavle Djurisic, Bajo Stanisic, Jakov Kusovac and other officers of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland who after that date continued their struggle to liberate the country under leadership of the King Peter and the Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron cross controversy

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

I think that this article does not present real controversies about Pavle Đurišić like Iron cross controversy. There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. Those claims say that it is not only forgery, but also absurd taking in consideration that Germans actually imprisoned Đurišić in 1943 and held him in captivity until he escaped.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There are claims." Bring reliable sources to the table not just some hearsay. Also Misplaced Pages is absolutely disinterested in your original research. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you know it is "my original research"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "my original research"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Please be trolling... -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually AntiD, it is original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. You have brought the claim here, so you need to back it up with a WP:RS. I am aware of the 'claim' but have never seen a WP:RS that supports it. Without a WP:RS, there is no controversy and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No. It would be original research only if no reliable, published sources exist to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And your comment was not constructive, because you were raising an issue without a WP:RS for it. I could go to any article and make a comment on a conspiracy theory about that subject and it would not be constructive. You have no source, you raised it, so your comment is WP:OR until you do, and with respect, I will be ignoring it until a source is provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You did not give me any time to present sources before you labeled my comment as original research. That was not polite nor constructive. Here are some sources which support information that there are claims that he actually did not receive Iron Cross:

Books:

Press

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, I don't read the lingo. When I see a translation into English by a disinterested sr-5 en Wikipedian translator and we can assess the reliability of the sources, or PRODUCER can read it and forms a view about the reliability of the sources, then we can discuss. Until then it's just a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You should probably provide English translations and context for the quotations if you want to be taken seriously by non Serbo-Croatian speakers. You are on English Misplaced Pages after all. Unsurprisingly every source is a non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly, and unreliable Serbian work. How you can criticize Cohen and then bring a government gazette, a book by a collaborator, a bunch of yellow press and tabloid articles, and even a website dedicated solely to Chetnik apologism is beyond me. The first "book" is actually an official gazette of the FRY government which you were told before. The second is a biography on Milan Nedic written by Stanislav Krakov who was the head of propaganda for ZBOR and Nedic's "relative and close coworker." As for the rest, Serbian yellow press and tabloids that are not worth the paper their printed on. --PRODUCER (TALK) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. I take it 'yellow press' is like 'tabloid journalism' here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've dealt with Stanislav Krakov as source before and I think that it's much worse than that. Another user had been making extensive use of Stanislav Krakov on Gligor Sokolovic and Antidiskriminator was insisting that he's RS even when I pointed out that he was editor-in-chief of the Belgrade-based collaborationist newspaper Obnova. However, arguments shouldn't have been needed at all as the details and "facts" from his works were so disturbing that I had to ask for admin intervention in order to remove such info. Btw PRODUCER since you're knowledgeable regarding Yugoslav/Croatian/Serbian sources would you evaluate Smilja Avramov as a source? --— ZjarriRrethues —  12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Krakov was not removed as source from Gligor Sokolović. On the contrary, he is used more than 100 times as reference in that article.
@ZjarriRrethues, your invitation is another example of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing connected with Vulnetari article. First you invited Peacemaker67 and now PRODUCER. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Asking someone to find sources about a subject is not that and asking someone to evaluate sources is not that either. However, your labeling of Peacemaker's comment and tendetious edits like this one (based again on Smilja Avramov, Nenadovic etc.) isn't prudent.--— ZjarriRrethues —  15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

Within six weeks after uprising started on 13 July 1941 Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. Here is what article says happened then (end of August, beginning of September 1941):

  • "A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated. As a result, the nationalists, including Đurišić who was popular in his own Vasojević clan of northern Montenegro, withdrew into the hinterland."

Tomasevich's work was used to support the the first sentence. Here is what Tomasevich wrote on pages 140-142:

I think that the source is not properly interpreted. The text of the article could mislead the readers to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941, after Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. That is not correct. The source explicitly says that it happened at the beginning of 1942. It is important to be precise with the timeline here because events of this period are very important for understanding the full context of the future events. Đurišić withdrew into the hinterland not because of the split between communists and nationalists, but because of Italians who captured towns and communication routes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was when the split developed, it says that was when Mihailovic's attitude towards the Partisans was reflected in the relations between the various forces from the beginning of 1942. If you are suggesting some additional information could be added to clarify when the split occurred in Montenegro I accept that, and will add something shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you need to clarify when the spilt between partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Otherwise readers could be mislead to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising

Solved:Source is properly interpreted.

The text of the article says:

  • "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced, with the nationalists having closer ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims. Ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania combined to make Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region."

The source (Pawlovich, page 78) says:

  • "The differences in the outlook between communists and nationalists were particularly pronounced in northern Montenegro, with its traditionally close ties with Serbia and its "frontier mentality" towards Muslims. It was there that ustasha manipulation of the Sandžak Muslims and the flight of the Orthodox from the area annexed to Albania was mostly felt. Whereas communists wanted to carry on with the revolution, by turning against 'traitors', 'kulaks' and 'spies' (particularly if they were Muslims), Djurisić and his fighters were impatient to go on with the uprising by marching into those districts and turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

I think that the source is misinterpreted especially because the source emphasize that:

  1. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against the working class enemies, especially if they were Muslims
  2. Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians.

Therefore I propose to properly interpret the source and to reword above mentioned paragraph to match what source actually says. Rewording maybe can be done like this:

  • "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced. It is a region with close ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims where ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania was mostly felt. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against class enemies, especially if they were Muslims, while Đurišić and his Chetniks wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you will, like many others, get into too close paraphrasing with the source. If you believe this is justified, you should make those edits yourself and let the assessors decide If you have paraphrased the source too closely. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I also believe that you might stray into POV territory if you emphasise that the 'communists wanted to carry on with the "communist" revolution',. That is not what the source says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The source does not say "communist revolution". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have expanded this section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I added necessary clarification, as per source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede and two times in the main body of the article which describes the events, while information about Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Iron Cross award is highly notable, but it is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the main text. It also appears in the caption of an image. There was no information about when he was awarded the Star of Karageorge so I could put in the right section chronologically, so I put it in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning the image. I forgot about it. That means that this is even more against WP:NPOV because mentioning Iron Cross in the caption of an image means that there is additionally a collage picture of two pages regarding the Iron Cross.
Karađorđe's star is also very notable award. It is against WP:NPOV to give so much more weight to information about award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to him by Yugoslav government.
There was information about when it was awarded. After Durmitor operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as their relative notability, the Order of Karageorge was awarded to quite a number of Chetnik commanders, but only one Chetnik commander I am aware of was awarded the Iron Cross, which makes it more exceptional (ie it is a unique award to a Chetnik, unlike the Star). I listed the Star first in the infobox because it is standard practice to include indigenous awards before foreign ones, and that is as it should be. Your NPOV accusations are wrongheaded. The policy says 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' My point is that it is mentioned once in the lead, once in the text, and given the exceptional nature of the award, the text is supported by the image. I would not be against including an image of the entitlement document for his Star if one was available, but I am not aware of one. The Iron Cross is fairly and proportionately represented when you take into account the uniqueness of the award. I see no bias in supporting the text with an image. And by the way, which Durmitor operation are we talking about and where is the source that says what date the award occurred? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That was military operation conducted in August 1944.
Jozo Tomasevich mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after that Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded. On the other hand, Karađorđe's star was very rarely awarded only for exceptional merit. Even if it is undisputed that Đurišić ever received it (which is not) I still believe that it is against wp:npov to give so much more weight to information about Iron Cross award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to Đurišić by Yugoslav government.
I propose to remove lede sentence and image collage with its caption.
That way iron cross information would remain in the infobox and once in the text of the article, like information about Karađorđe's star. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to produce reliable sources which dispute that he received the Iron Cross. Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross. Many Chetnik commanders received the star and off the top of my head this included Mihailović, Jevđević, and Pećanac while on the other hand no other received the Iron Cross. Given the nature of the subject I believe the current version is neutral. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
"Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross." - Yes, it is this source written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: According to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that some sources that Maclean was aware of said that he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This issue is not resolved:
  1. There is nothing unique with this award which was given to almost anybody (more than five million totally) comparing to Karadjordje's star which was given to very limited number of people.
  2. Iron Cross assertion is based on unreliable source.
  3. Iron Cross assertion is disputed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, whatever chief. Please stop with the 'Resolved' and 'Unresolved' nonsense per PRODUCERs comments earlier. My point about resolving a few of these sections is that the 'label' you are using just reflects in what areas the article disagrees with your point of view. It is a personal view of yours, doesn't mean anything to the community and is completely pointless. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Biroli-Djukanovic Agreement

Solved:Information about comprehensive collaboration agreement included

Currently there is a paragraph that generally covers Djurisic's activity in March 1942; however there is a more detailed page in Tomasevich 1975 stating that at the time there was a "comprehensive" Italian-Chetnik agreement formed and signed by Biroli and Djukanovic assumed to be known by Mihailovic. It specifically details the collaboration between the Italians and Chetniks in Montenegro which included about 1,500 Djurisic's men being officially recognized and organized as a "flying detachment" and much more. See page 211 for more info. This should help add more context especially for the Biroli and Djurisic pic. I'll add this when I have the time unless someone else wants to have a go at it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
let me know if you think I've covered it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll assess the matter in detail tomorrow. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the "new" Nationalist Committee of Montenegro, a simple sanction of an "already existing committee headed by Djukanovic" (Tomasevich (1975), pg. 211), and its purpose should be included. Djukanovic was "the senior commander of all Chetnik forces in Montenegro" (Tomasevich (2001), pg. 142) and Djurisic was "aligned" to his committee (Milazzo (1975), pg. 85). -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I rearranged the addition to make it clear it was part of the agreement. I also added the open arrangements of mutual understanding. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good additions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Book links

Solved:In this article, Google Book links are only added for books available in preview

Should the book references have Google Book links if the book is unable for viewing? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ah, now that one I do not know. Maybe MOS tells us? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
At GA they suggested they be consistent i.e. either all should have them or none. MOS only addresses the matter in the citations themselves stating: "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view." WP:PAGELINK Presumably Google Book links that aren't available for viewing likewise shouldn't be added in the references section. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 01:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get that. It is a bit counter-intuitive to make them all the same in the ref section. Then even if the book is available on preview, they have to manually search for it. I think it should be url linked if preview is available, and not if not. I might ask Ian Rose what the expectation is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There was at least one discussion at WT:FAC before my time as a delegate re. using GoogleBooks links, if available, for references. There is no requirement to employ them, nor is there a rule against them. If the GoogleBooks url is to a previewable work (as opposed to snippet view or no view at all) then you can feel free to employ it if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See also, Further reading, External links

I noticed there is no See also, Further reading nor External links section in this article. It might be a good idea to create such sections because the topic of this article is very complex and it would be useful for the readers to point to the articles, sources or websites where it is possible to get more information about the topic of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe below presented source written by Montenegrin historian and University professor could be added to Further reading section:
  • Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see an official gazette of FRY written in Serbo-Croatian as being useful neutral "further reading" for English Misplaced Pages. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you against my idea to create above mentioned sections?
An official gazette of FRY is the publisher. It is of course not neutral because it contains description of the very important events by one of its participants and can be presented as such.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with PRODUCER regarding the 'Further reading' source you have listed, and note that less than half of all featured articles have such a section. The 'Bibliography' section is pretty comprehensive for the subject matter. But I'm also unsure what you would put in a 'See also' section. I have been through the article a couple of times, and nothing jumped out at me that wasn't already linked in the article. I'm open to suggestions though. Any 'External links', like 'Further reading' should meet WP:RS, and I just haven't seen anything in English I think adds value. There is a lot of unsourced stuff on the web about the man, and I think we'd have to look long and hard to find anything useful that isn't already represented. Personally, I think this article has been very thoroughly researched, even if I do say so myself, and pulls together a lot of scholarly publications into a coherent whole. I don't necessarily oppose creating these sections, but I just don't see the need. The article is comprehensive. I'm sure it will be improved incrementally over time as more work is published on the topic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that my idea to add Further reading section is bad. The bibliography section is not enough for readers who would like to know more about the topic of this article. There are many other works on Đurišić. Some of them may not be reliable, but with appropriate note about their unreliability they could also be informative to the readers.
I don' agree that "this article has been very thoroughly researched" and that "The article is comprehensive.". There are to many important details missing, like family members information (the article does not contain information about his parents, that he was married, that he had children...), or reasons why some people wanted to build a memorial complex dedicated to Đurišić, and many other reasons. There is FA criteria which says that article should be stable before getting FA status. That was not the case with this article which was not stable, and had many nonresolved issues on the talk page and probably even more which would be presented before this article becomes stable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, which clearly was not shared by the FA team. Whilst I accept that there were some improvements to the article as a result of your questions, much of it was tendentious and lacking even the most minimal support from WP:RS (Iron Cross, song about him, family, etc etc etc). If I was not WP:AGF I might think the stream of questions was some attempt to either skew the article away from NPOV or derail the FA nomination. With all the instability that resulted... But I'm sure you wouldn't do that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article. Article based on unreliable source can not be FA. What is tendentious is insisting on RS when it comes to Further reading section and in the same time using unreliable sources in the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
or insisting that something is disputed but not providing one shred of evidence that it is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

Unresolved

According to RSN discussion] Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One review is not the sole factor to determining a source's reliability or its use. The claims in the article that are attributed to Cohen's book have citations to primary sources in the book and, as even that review indicates, "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It was Cohen's book which supports very important (and disputed) assertion about Iron Cross. Not primary source like "note a" says. It is wrong to attribute Iron Cross assertion to primary source (which nobody saw) just because it is mentioned in unreliable Cohen's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is Ignoratio elenchi, the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issues in question. Instead of fallacies it is better to deal with issues. The issues in question are:
  1. unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
  2. referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in another section. I find your comment "You answer a question for a change" unnecessarily harsh.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is over. If you feel you can make a comment stating that it is disputed (above), refer to a section where you produced no WP:RS for the supposed dispute, then insist that YOUR question be answered, this clearly is going nowhere fast. There has to be mutual acceptance of the need for the discussion, and as far as I am concerned you have abjectly failed to bring anything to the table to dispute it. Maclean states that 'according to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans'. Maclean's book was published in 1957, Cohen's in 1999. Cohen references several things to that paragraph in his book, including Kostic, Parezanin and Stefanovic as well as the primary source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You overlooked the point. I will underline it: This section is not about Iron Cross dispute. This section is about two important issues of this article: using unreliable source ('Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War') and referencing the primary source to support assertion which is in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN due to its perceived slanting of facts to suit a conclusion (my summary). However, as PRODUCER has already pointed out, the review in question stated "no falsifications of history appear in its pages.". So unless you have a WP:RS that disputes the Iron Cross (ie indicates that there is a falsification in Cohen, specifically about the Iron Cross), there is no basis for removing that citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". It should not be used to support assertions in this article. All assertions based on this work, including microfilm assertion which is also based on Cohen's work, should be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not what was said. If you are so sure that is what was meant, then feel free to take this specific issue back to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That is what you said. I quoted you. You and PRODUCER insisted on RS many times on this talkpage, just search word reliable and look for yourself. Now, when the source you used is found unreliable you insist on using it, although you refused to use many other sources just because you claimed they are not reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Other editors do not agree the book is unreliable so do not reinsert your frivolous tags. Do not claim it's unreliable when the sole review brought up at RSN even states "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." Do not claim it's disputed without bringing reliable sources of your own. --PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you overlooked that Peacemaker67 admited: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". Until RS is found the references based on Cohen should be appropriately tagged. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit anything, I summarised what was said at WP:RSN. Your English comprehension needs some work, you just read into my comments what you want to see. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. You did not admit, you summarized: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and whilst I believe that was Fifelfoo's conclusion, I now have good reason to question the review that was produced. As this came up while I was working on the Ante Pavelic article (as I'm sure you will recall), I searched for more information on two of the dubious sources used in that article, published by the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies. In my research I came across a post on the blog of Dr Marko Attila Hoare (a former member of the faculty of history at Cambridge University and the author of 'Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia' published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, which is also used as a source in this article as well as the Pavelic one). And he supports Cohen and his book. I have linked the blog post here . On the basis of Hoare's recommendation, I have therefore re-considered my position and will treat Cohen as a WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is a reliable source for the determination of the reliability of sources? Don't make me laugh. I've de-tagged Cohen in the biblio, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast Peacemaker67. You should present Atilla's website on RSN and gain consensus there before you proclaim victory of your POV.
  1. Your rationale and "re-considering of your position" is wrong and based on fact picking. There are other reviews of Cohen's book which are not so afirmative, like this review.
  2. Even Atilla admits that Cohen was not a professional historian or academicblog link.
  3. Atilla has been reported for his false statements and fake quotes published on his personal website. Here is what this complaint says about Atila's postings: "these posting contain false statements, fake quotes, and personalized smears. And Hoare not only impugns my academic research; he impugns my moral character as well. Taken as a whole, Hoare’s methods violate basic norms of academic conduct." - signed by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History
Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious because you refuse to accept independent input of RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, there are three editors here disputing your inserting those tags vs your lone self being oh-so-wiki-insistent. See WP:OAS; this is an FA and you're not to tag it lightly; not at all in the face of a consensus against doing so, here on talk.. I've {{resolved}} this thread. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. I am not alone. There is important independent input (don't forget that two editors who support Cohen are very much involved) at RSN which says that Cohen is not RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A song

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There is a very popular Chetnik song "Đurišiću mlad majore" written during the war and dedicated to Djurisic. Maybe it would be a good idea to add this information to the article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

again, have never heard of it, and have not been able to locate a WP:RS in English for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ђуришићу млад мајоре - There are many sources that could be used as reference for song about Durisic. This song is very popular and interpreted by numerous performers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
and which of these would you suggest is a WP:RS? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think there is a need to support this assertion about this very popular song with the source of exceptional reliability? I don't think so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, verifiability, not truth. --PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Any of the presented sources can be used to support song assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You say it is/was popular. What do the WP:RS say? YouTube vids are just ridiculous at this class of article. So far as I am concerned, you need a WP:RS for its existence and popularity if it is to be included. There is nothing I can find in en, so you need to find something in sr and translate it. Don't link a pile of Google results. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, even I can work out that the first two hits are Radomir J. Ostojic (a Montenegrin Chetnik) and Ratko Parezanin (Ljotic's secretary) who was Ljotic's liaison officer with Djurisic when he commanded the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same Parežanin who you used to support disputed iron cross assertion based on unreliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What dispute? Again, what WP:RS do you have that disputes the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, giving undue weight to the controversial Iron Cross award is very big problem with this article which violates WP:NPOV. But Iron Cross controversy is subject of the discussion in another section.
This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić.
You used unreliable source to support Iron Cross award giving it undue weight and violating WP:NPOV. When the source you used was "considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN" you tried to defend your POV supporting it with work of Parežanin. Now you refuse to add information about the notable song dedicated to Đurišić also based on the same Parežanin. Someone who doesn't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious and disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There are three secondary sources for the Iron Cross, two of Cohen, and one of Maclean. I have repeated (and I believe PRODUCER has too) that even the pretty negative review of Cohen 1996 that Fifelfoo produced states that "No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs". That means that the contents haven't been falsified but the conclusions he draws in the book are dubious. The Iron Cross is not a conclusion drawn by Cohen, it is a fact he has presented. On that basis, I see no reason why he cannot be used for individual facts, but I would be very careful only to use his conclusions if they were supported by reliable sources. Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre. Your accusation of undue weight and violating NPOV is just wrongheaded and reveals your own consistent POV-pushing. As far as the song is concerned, have yet to see a WP:RS for it. When you produce one, we can discuss.
If there is anything bizarre it is your insisting on sources which you and PRODUCER consider RS for not such exceptional claims like song, but using unreliable source for very important assertions like extensively used and pictured Iron Cross assertion just because someone on RSN said that no falsification of history appear in its pages.
This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić. If you want to discuss using ureliable sources in this article please use appropriate section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
you are the one conflating one discussion with another. I've asked for a WP:RS for the 'notable' song. Haven't seen one yet though. Until I do I plan to ignore this string. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. You wrote "Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre." in the comment within this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Berane

Unresolved – in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator

There are claims that Đurišić's forces commanded by him captured Berane from Italians on 17—18 July 1941, during July uprising in Montenegro. If that is correct it is very important information which should be added to the article. The current version of the article could mislead readers to believe that communsts captured Berane while Djurisic was subordinated to them.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Still no idea. Perhaps you would consider taking PRODUCERs advice and provide a translation into English given this is en WP? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
en WP has one rule regarding AGF.
  1. Memorial to Pavle Đurišić should have been built when other memorials connected with WWII were built in this region because "Pavle Đurišić liberated Berane" ... - Historian Goran Kiković in his interview to Glas Javnosti
  2. Not because they were numerous but because they were determined to be victorious or to die, Đuršić forced Italan command to surrender. That way Berane was again in our hands on 18 July.... - Goran Komar, Vojvoda Pavle Đurišić
  3. Pavle Đurišić rose Vasojevići and on 15/16 July besieged Berane - Zalosna stvarnost: 1941; u spomen 25-o godišnjice trećeg srpskog ustanka, Božidar Sokolović, Vlado Trebjesšanin - 1966
  4. Berane was captured on 16 July after it was besieged by captain Pavle Đurišić - Treći srpski ustanak, 1941, Томови 1-2, Sergije M. Živanović
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Consult WP:RS on what constitutes a reliable source. Also, seize with these ridiculous "unresolved" tags when not getting your preferred outcome. --PRODUCER (TALK) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is unnecessarily harsh and violates Misplaced Pages:Civility.
Insisting on using the source which was found unreliable on RSN and at the same time proclaiming any source which does not support certain POV as unreliable is not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Answers at RSN "are not official policy" and your misinterpretations of Peacemaker's comments do not help. The sole review, supposedly decidedly against it, agrees that "no falsifications of history appear in its pages". I'm not the one copy-pasting numerous unreliable sources in many sections to support a "certain POV". Also determining whether the sources and their publishers are reliable, scholarly, academic, and peer-reviewed is not a sin. --PRODUCER (TALK) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion

Moved from Talk:Pavle Đurišić § WikiProject Serbia – Moved to present list of reasons for not meeting A-class criteria at one review. Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues.Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:
  1. It is not well-written: There are misleading parts, like one about communist leaders of uprising and Djurisic being probably subordinated to the communists since he was only a participant in their uprising
  2. It is not comprehensive because it it neglects major facts and details (like family members, wife, children, descendants..., death of his father, ).
  3. It is not neutral violates WP:NPOV because
    1. there are two sentences which explain why his 2002 memorial "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" should not be constructed and no explanation of the motives for building "Montenegrin Ravna Gora"
    2. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to Iron Cross award assertion (also compared to Karadjordje award), based on unreliable source and disputed by other sources
  4. It is not stable.
  5. Based on unreliable source. Important assertion (Iron Cross) extensively presented in the article is based on source which is considered unreliable on RSN
I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: