| Revision as of 12:35, 20 September 2012 editAntidiskriminator (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers58,480 edits →Officers and commissars - Pavlowitch p76: formatting← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:43, 13 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,249,823 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "FA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina}}, {{WikiProject Montenegro}}, {{WikiProject Serbia}}, {{WikiProject Yugoslavia}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (871 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Australian English}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=16:14, 10 May 2012 |
|
|action1date=16:14, 10 May 2012 |
|
|action1link=Talk:Pavle Đurišić/GA1 |
|
|action1link=Talk:Pavle Đurišić/GA1 |
| Line 32: |
Line 26: |
|
|action4oldid=509568885 |
|
|action4oldid=509568885 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|maindate2=13 February 2023 |
|
|
|maindate=April 13, 2014 |
|
|topic=war |
|
|topic=war |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|living=no|listas=Djurisic, Pavle|1= |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days }} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |military-work-group=yes |military-priority=mid}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|importance=mid}} |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|A-Class=pass|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Biography=yes|Balkan=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Montenegro|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|priority=mid|listas=Djurisic, Pavle}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=21 September 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|A-Class=pass|Biography=yes|Balkan=yes|WWII=yes |
|
|
|
}} |
|
| B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
| B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive index |
|
| B3 <!-- Structure --> = y |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive <#> |
|
| B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
| B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y}} |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Montenegro|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposal for assessment as A-Class == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Proposal withdrawn:Redundant}} |
|
|
G'day all, |
|
|
You will be pleased to note that ] was recently assessed as A-Class by ]. 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 ]. 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. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===WikiProject Serbia=== |
|
|
<s>There are improvement opportunities presented in my review at ] but I think that this article meets A-class criteria.--] (]) 10:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
Regards, ] (]) 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: |
|
|
:# 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 02:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== July uprising == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Solved:Information that Đurišić distinguished himself in the July uprising against Italians added to the article.}} |
|
|
The role of Đurišić in July uprising is still eluded. |
|
|
|
|
|
] says that ''"DjuriSic had distinguished himself during the July uprising in the battle at Berane, where the worst fighting took place."'' . |
|
|
|
|
|
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 are not mistake of biased book.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Done. ] (]) 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"''.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
=== Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists === |
|
|
{{Not resolved|in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator}} |
|
|
The text of the article says: |
|
|
* ''In mid-July 1941, there was a general <u>uprising against the Italians, led by the communists</u>.'' and |
|
|
* ''A split then developed between <u>the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated</u>.'' |
|
|
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. --] (]) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: sorry for not responding to this earlier. It doesn't say that at all, please re-read it? ] (]) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I re-read it. It still says that: |
|
|
::# ''In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists.'' |
|
|
::# ''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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Question:'' |
|
|
::::''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 '']'' --] (]) 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 " |
|
|
:::::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. --] (]) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You will need a source for that. ] (]) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Incorrect. On the contrary. Without sources which support implied Djurisic's subordination to communists it is necessary to make above mentioned clarification in order to prevent misleading of the readers.--] (]) 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Ah, no actually, not incorrect. The article does not imply Djurisic was subordinated to the communists, it says that the revolt was led by the communists and that he participated in the revolt. It implies nothing because the sources don't imply anything about that aspect. I don't know what his relationship was with the communist leadership of the uprising because it is not explained or detailed in any of the sources used for that aspect of the article. IF you have a source that explains what his relationship was with the communists, then you can add that information with the citation. If you don't it is ] to either draw the conclusion that he wasn't in any way subordinated to the communists OR to draw the conclusion that he wasn't. I have not drawn either conclusion, I have only presented what the sources actually say. ] (]) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Iron cross controversy == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Not resolved|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.--] (]) 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. --<font face="xx-medium serif"> ]</font></font> <sub>(])</sub></font> 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::How do you know it is "''my original research''"?--] (]) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. ] (]) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Incorrect. ] |
|
|
::::@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "''my original research''"? --] (]) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please be trolling... --<font face="xx-medium serif"> ]</font></font> <sub>(])</sub></font> 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Actually AntiD, it <u>is</u> original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. <u>You</u> have brought the claim here, so <u>you</u> 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 <u>no controversy</u> and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. ] (]) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No. It would be original research only if <u>no reliable, published sources exist</u> to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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''': |
|
|
*{{Citation |last=Kovačević |first=Branislav |author=Branislav Kovačević |title=Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 |trans_title=From Vezier's bridge to Zidani most, tragic destiny of Montenegrin Chetniks in the final faze of war: 1944—1945 |year=1993 |publisher= Službeni list SRJ |location= Belgrade |language=Serbian |isbn=9788635501895 |oclc=32928143 }} - Historian Branislav Kovačević: Ако је Ђуришић стварно добио високо њемачко одликовање од фирера „Жељезни крст" тешко да би га усташе, вјерни Хитлерови послушници на ломачи спалиле |
|
|
* - General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov |
|
|
'''Press''' |
|
|
* - Glas Javnosti, Interview with Dragoljub Šćekić who is President of the Board for building of the memorial to Pavle Djurisic |
|
|
* - Vladimir Jovanović ''"(Zlo)upotreba istorije"'', 19 August 2011, Monitoring- Number 1087 |
|
|
* - Historian Bojan Dimitrijević, Večernje Novosti |
|
|
* - Historian Kosta Nikolić, Večernje Novosti |
|
|
* - Interview of Miloslav Samardžić to Svedok magazine, published on Pogledi website. |
|
|
--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh dear. I take it 'yellow press' is like 'tabloid journalism' here. ] (]) 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 ] and Antidiskriminator was insisting that he's RS even when I pointed out that he was ]. 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 . Btw PRODUCER since you're knowledgeable regarding Yugoslav/Croatian/Serbian sources would you evaluate Smilja Avramov as a ]? --<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 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 ] connected with ] article. First you and now PRODUCER. Please don't do it anymore.--] (]) 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 (based again on Smilja Avramov, Nenadovic etc.) isn't prudent.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis. ] (]) 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't agree because I believe that at least some of the presented sources are enough reliable to dispute Iron Cross award.--] (]) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Which ones are 'reliable enough' in your view? ] (]) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Not resolved|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. --] (]) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was <u>when the split developed</u>, 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. ] (]) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Added. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Please clarify, I cannot understand your phraseology "developed until". ] (]) 23:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is necessary to clarify when the split between Partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Based on the current text of the article readers could be mislead that it happened in August-September 1941 although it happened at the beginning of 1942.--] (]) 12:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Not so fast. There are two issues here, firstly the approach of the nationalists to the Italians in autumn 1941 (Tomasevich 1975) and their increased propensity to collaboration after Mihailovic attacked the Partisans at Uzice (on 2 November), and secondly that the anti-Partisan attitude of Mihailovic became 'clearly reflected in Montenegro' from the beginning of 1942 (Tomasevich 2001). So it is not clear exactly when the split began to occur (although some time in the autumn is likely), or when it was complete (although February/March 1942 is pretty likely given that was when the main Montenegrin Chetnik leaders made collaboration agreements with the Italians). ] (]) 04:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Not resolved|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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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? ] (]) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That was military operation conducted in August 1944. |
|
|
::::] mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): ''"At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call <u>Operation Durmitor</u> (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)..."''. --] (]) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after <u>that</u> Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. ] (]) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is incorrect that ] 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 <u>5 million EK II</u> (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. --] (]) 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. --<font face="xx-medium serif"> ]</font></font> <sub>(])</sub></font> 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. ] (]) 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 written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: ''<u>According to some accounts</u> he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans.'' That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::This issue is not resolved: |
|
|
::::::::::# 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. |
|
|
::::::::::# Iron Cross assertion is based on unreliable source. |
|
|
::::::::::# Iron Cross assertion is disputed.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}The uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic is based on its context, essentially a combination of two facts, the fact that it is a German award and the fact it was awarded to a Chetnik. A completely unique set of facts as far as I am aware. The issue of the reliability of the source is under discussion at RSN. The assertion that the Iron Cross award is disputed is yours, and you have been asked for reliable sources that dispute it. That remains under discussion above. ] (]) 06:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The claim that the article violates NPOV in this respect is being discussed at the ]. There is a backlog, but I will wait for a consensus to develop there. ] (]) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Not resolved}} |
|
|
According to {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|509885197|509882544|RSN discussion}}] Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--] (]) 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." --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 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.--] (]) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? ] (]) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Your comment is ], 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: |
|
|
::::# unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War |
|
|
::::# referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source. |
|
|
::::--] (]) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. ] (]) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in ]. I find your comment ''"You answer a question for a change"'' unnecessarily harsh.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You overlooked the point. I will underline it: <u>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.</u>--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::That is what you said. <u>I quoted you.</u> 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.--] (]) 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. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::: Maybe you overlooked that {{diff|Talk:Pavle Đurišić|510255166|510254979|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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I apologize. You did not admit, you summarized: <u>''"the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN"''</u>. --] (]) 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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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 {{diff|Pavle Đurišić|510882780|510880610|de-tagged Cohen}} in the biblio, too. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
:#Your rationale and "re-considering of your position" is wrong and based on . There are other reviews of Cohen's book which are not so afirmative, like . |
|
|
:#Even Atilla admits that <u>Cohen was not a professional historian or academic</u>. |
|
|
:#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. <u>Taken as a whole, Hoare’s methods violate basic norms of academic conduct.</u>''" - signed by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History |
|
|
:Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious because you ] of RSN.--] (]) 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 ]; 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 {{t|resolved}} this thread. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*Here is more toward amateurism of the .--] (]) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**Another RSN about Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War confirmed . |
|
|
**# Fifelfoo: |
|
|
**# Nick-D: .. |
|
|
**# Churn and change: . --] (]) 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
***Ah, no. The consensus of User:Nick-D and User:Churn and change is per Churn and change above with the proviso that Nick-D put on his view. Fifelfoo has been asked to go back and respond to Churn and change but has yet to do so. The current RSN issue is not finalised, as there is not "consensus of several editors". The first one didn't have the consensus of several editors (in fact only one editor gave a view), and is, as far as guidance is concerned, of very limited value, as it is now clear User:Churn and change strongly disagrees with Fifelfoo's view on policy grounds. Your post is premature. ] (]) 06:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A song == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Not resolved|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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: - There are many sources that could be used as reference for song about Durisic. This song is very popular and .--] (]) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:and which of these would you suggest is a WP:RS? ] (]) 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.--] (]) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''Sigh'', ]. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Any of the can be used to support song assertion.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Yes, it is the same Parežanin who .--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 . 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.--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{unindent}} |
|
|
Besides above mentioned list of sources which can easily be found trough Google Books search: |
|
|
* „, - Faze događaja - notorne istine: ("urbi et orbi"), Radomir J. Ostojić - 1985 |
|
|
* - Moja misija u Crnoj Gori, Ratko Parežanin, 1974 |
|
|
* - Zapisi iz dobrovoljacke borbe, 1954 |
|
|
* Raskol, Mile Kordić, 1996 |
|
|
* - Ratne i druge priče, Momčilo Isailović, 2000 |
|
|
there is additional source for this song dedicated to Djurisic: |
|
|
* ; Bosko S. Vukcevich - 1990--] (]) 08:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:None of these sources establish notability, not to mention that most are flagrantly POV i.e. Ratko Perezanin was a collaborationist and high-ranking member of ], Radomir Ostojic was a collaborationist and chetnik, while Mile Kordic served as editor of ] during the Milosevic era of the newspaper.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean like ], a member of Skandebeg's forces, whose work (of disputed autorship) is used as source in article about ]? --] (]) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I couldn't care less about that article, we are talking about this one. It needs WP:RS that establish notability for this information. It is not mentioned once in scholarly texts in English to my knowledge. ] (]) 07:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== User:Antidiskriminator's moved discussion of his personal issues with this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
::This is a featured article, so it'll take much more than attributions of problems to delist it. That being said, all the issues you raised have been checked in a much more ''thorough'' review on FAN.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Don't attribute motives to me. The purpose of this section is not delisting. Please read above explanation which says: ''"Presenting this list maybe can help resolving the issues."''. You can also read my above comment "''The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article''".--] (]) 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The supposedly unreliable source (Cohen) also has this review from Dr Marko Attila Hoare, formerly of the history department of Cambridge University. , as well as others available on Taylor & Francis (but not free unfortunately. Clearly there are serious questions about the single review produced by User:Fifelfoo at RSN given that his comments were unsupported by other RSN editors, and therefore did not even meet the minimum requirement for RSN of consensus of several editors. User:Antidiskriminator's persistent use of the comments of User:Fifelfoo in the face of contradictory views is just a simple case of ], and discloses a very particular POV. ] (]) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::This is no longer a talkpage, it is a list of demands where Anti even keeps a tally and continuously pushes the same already discussed and disproven nonsense. Now he has even rehashed his old review in an attempt to delist the article since his demands weren't met. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Not comprehensive and well-researched === |
|
|
{{Not resolved}} |
|
|
Besides all already mentioned arguments that this article does not meet A-class criteria article, this article neglects three major facts which are important for placing the subject in context: |
|
|
#<u>Declaration of Independence of Montenegro of 12 July 1941.</u> There is very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then "grievances against the Italians". It is declaration of independence of Montenegro issued on 12 July which ''"annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia"'' (JT p.140 of War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration). |
|
|
#<u>Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans</u> There is one very important event which is of exceptional importance for understanding the context of relations between Chetniks (and Đurišić) and Axis powers. It is '''a change of British policy toward Chetniks and Partisans.''' Until Autumn 1942 "the chief British aid to Chetniks was ignoring the Partisans" (J.T. p. 302). "Although Yugoslav government and Mihailovic were important ''"as strong supporters of Karadjordjevic dynasty which the British wanted to preserve...the more immediate military considerations"'' were persuasive.(JT 301) British government decided to considerably change their policy ''" toward Yugoslav government and the Chetniks by establishing direct contact with the Partisans and extending them aid"'' (J.T. p 305). Moreover in June 1943 "''under increased British pressure''" ''"by far the most influential Yugoslav minister in exile"'' ] (''"one of Mihailovic's staunchest supporters"'') was forced to resign. |
|
|
#<u>Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro</u> Both Ramet and Tomasevich explain this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan". That was a plan to establish some kind of union state between Serbia and Montenegro. That plan was the reason for Neubacher to release Djurisic from prison and that plan was a basis for future Đurišićs activities and collaboration with Axis. |
|
|
|
|
|
All three facts are presented in the sources already used in the article, but they were somehow overlooked.--] (]) 11:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: you constantly refer to something being "very important" or "most important" or even "much more important". I'm afraid that this is in your mind (or POV) unless you have a source that says it is "very, most, much more" important. Where exactly does Tomasevich say that these issues were of "exceptional" importance or "very important" as far as Djurisic's motivations were concerned? As far as the last point is concerned, you need a page. ] (]) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Page 134.--] (]) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: This is total misrepresentation of the source. I have the page open on my desk, and p. 134 says nothing about Djurisic, and the only mention of Montenegro is the following about halfway down the page "On July 13 fighting broke out in Montenegro,...". At the bottom of the page, the discussion of what the involvement of nationalists was in the uprising is about Serbia, not Montenegro. ] (]) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: --] (]) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: ah, Ramet. Why didn't you say, I assumed Tomasevich. ] (]) 13:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I did say --] (]) 14:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And where does Tomasevich explain this plan? ] (]) 14:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Page 222. Tomasevich explains plans for 'Greater Serbian Federation' (consisting of Serbia, Montenegro, Sandžak and possibly Eastern Bosnia) among other things to explain presence of the Serbian Volunteer Corps in Sandžak and why Djurisic ''"owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić"''. You already used this page and particular paragraph as in the article. You probably overlooked it.--] (]) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====I - Declaration of Independence of Montenegro==== |
|
|
According to Antidiskriminator, supposedly "There is very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then "grievances against the Italians"." Where on p. 140 of Tomasevich 2001 does it mention Djurisic? It doesn't mention him at all, actually. It explicitly says that "The Italians had good reason to be concerned about dissatisfaction among the people." and "The following day, July 13, the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist but most strongly nationalist, joined in." The article says "In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organize themselves into the Chetniks, and former Yugoslav Army officers, some of whom had recently been released from prisoner-of-war camps. The rebels seized control of small towns and villages in the early phase of the uprising". The article is entirely consistent with the source, there is no mention of the declaration being "very important information which is maybe much more important to understand the context of 13 July uprising then (sic) "grievances against the Italians"." The only use of the term "important" by Tomasevich on that page is to state (referring to Montenegro) that "Most importantly, it had a strong Communist Party organisation." ] (]) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:You again overlooked something important. You wrote almost whole paragraphs about grievances and supported it with the pages which does not mention Djurisic at all (p 138-140). Including page 140. |
|
|
:You used page 140 two times in the article's references. Page 140 does not have to mention Djurisic if it is used to support the context of the events. --] (]) 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::you have completed failed to show that this information is much more important than the grievances, or very important, or even important. Tomasevich does not say that. ] (]) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Incorrect. ]. Jozo Tomasevich considered this event was important. He even described it in his work, right before description of the uprising. He wrote a whole paragraph about: - The declaration of independence of Montenegro issued on 12 July which <u>"annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia".</u> Then he continued with: ''"'''The following day, July 13,''' the Communist Party initiated a general uprising. Many non-Communists and a substantial number of former army officers, some pro-Communist <u>but most strongly nationalist, joined in</u>."'' Without information about this event the context of uprising and involvement of nationalists (including Đurišić) would not be complete.--] (]) 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'll ignore the wikilawyering rot about WP:COATRACK, which is really insulting given the amount of time and effort put into this article. Just because it doesn't reflect how you want the man portrayed doesn't mean it's a coatrack. As far as this is concerned, I went back to the sources and have added in some material from Pavlowitch which indicates that the revolt was triggered by the proclamation. As far as I am concerned the matter is resolved. ] (]) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====II - Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans ==== |
|
|
According to Antidiskriminator, "There is one very important event which is of exceptional importance for understanding the context of relations between Chetniks (and Đurišić) and Axis powers". Who says that? In what source does it say that this event had any impact on Đurišić? Particularly considering he was one of the first to make a collaboration agreement with the Italians, which happened way before the British even considered switching their support, much less when they actually did cut off the Chetniks. This is straight out unsupported ]. Your constant unsourced POV pushing on this talkpage is disruptive and tendentious. Please stop it. ] (]) 00:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== III - Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro ==== |
|
|
Jozo Tomasevich in his work "Četnici u drugom svjetskom ratu 1941-1945" on page number 312 emphasizes and confirms '''important''' role of Pavle Djurisic in the military arrangements of the plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. |
|
|
* "" (translation: Because Hitler opposed this plan it was never accepted, but in case of Montenegro some military arangements between general Felber and general Nedić have been made. In those arrangements '''important''' role had major Pavle Đurišić.)--] (]) 10:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== IV - Western Allied landing - disarming and capture of Đurišić and his forces ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a fourth major fact neglected by this article but very important for placing the subject in context: |
|
|
* <u>Neglected major fact number 4:</u> (Based on ] in , page 94 or work of Jozo Tomasevich "", page 94): "....since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western....In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they (Germans) wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič." |
|
|
|
|
|
{{quotation|Of course, since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western and thus in the case of a Western Allied landing on the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia would surely have turned their arms against the Germans and Italians, it was necessary for the Axis powers to have this possibility in mind and keep a certain number of Italian and German troops in readiness for it. However, the Italians and the Germans never saw eye to eye on policy toward the Chetniks. From the German- Italian discussions of this problem one can draw the conclusion that the Italians wanted to use the Chetniks as much as possible to dispose of the Partisans, after which they planned to dispose of the Chetniks. The Germans, on the other hand, until the Italian collapse and apart from the "live and let live" agreements in eastern and northwestern Bosnia, chose not to collaborate with the Chetniks and instead followed a policy of disarming them. '''In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič.'''|]}}--] (]) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I hate to break it to you but him allowing his troops to be disarmed without a fight is actually further indicative of collaboration, rather than the opposite. is the customary reply given to enemy troops asking you to "lay down your weapons" :). But if they're ''not'' your enemy.. if you're working ''for'' them.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::They were captured too. --] (]) 09:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Per my response to the same discussion on ], why don't you draft a couple of sentences and discuss them here? ] (]) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Incorrect. The Case Black discussion is connected only to fourth major fact neglected by this article. I am only reviewing this article and don't have intention to edit it but to help improving it during the review. |
|
|
:::::: Until this matter is properly covered this article should be properly tagged. Would it be better to use ] or ]? --] (]) 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: This is an entirely ''minor'' point. And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration. Instead of tagging the article, put forward a proposal as to how you would wish this covered, but please be careful not to insinuate this is in any way an act of "resistance" (since I assume that's what you're aiming at). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Agree with Director. Either tag would be completely inappropriate. It would be ] to tag this article on the basis of such a point of little overall weight or importance. This article has been recently reviewed and is FA. Your little review to make sure it meets your personal standards means little to anyone other than yourself. If you are not interested in editing or improving the article so it addresses your concerns, drop the ]. Your behaviour on this talk page is disruptive and tendentious. ] (]) 13:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::@Director.''"And I have no idea what you mean by "they were captured too", but his compliance with German orders to surrender his weapons is indicative of collaboration."'' |
|
|
:::::::::Incorrect. He was not only forced to surrender his weapons but also captured and transported to prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv.--] (]) 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Yes of course he was "forced", I'm sure he didn't exactly ''like'' it much. The point is he did so peacefully and none of this is indicative of resistance activity (you'll note the Partisans, who ''were'' Axis enemy combatants, did not surrender their arms). The man won the Iron Cross for heaven's sake.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No. The man was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing.--] (]) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Says who? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Jozo Tomasevich. --] (]) 10:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Look, there's no question that the German offensives ''Weiss'' and ''Schwartz'' were all because of the possibility of an Allied landing in the Balkans. All German activities at that time were all motivated by the necessity to secure the area. However: the point is that he allowed his troops to be '''''peacefully disarmed''''' - ''that'' is indicative of collaboration. If he was imprisoned for the time being he was released afterwards and so distinguished himself in service of the Germans they decorated him. You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero" for being arrested and thrown in prison by his masters - for a brief while. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Please respect ] ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor."'' Please stop attributing motives to me. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Djurisic escaped from prisoner of war camp at Stryi in the Lviv. --] (]) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I commented on content, on your position, not on you yourself. Please keep your wikilawyering to yourself. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::''"You're trying to portray this collaborator and traitor to the King as some kind of "resistance hero""'' - You attributed motive to me. Please don't do that. Please respect ] ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor."'' --] (]) 12:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::I do sincerely apologize. Please provide a source for Đurišić's escape and the whole story (with page numbers). And please try not to use some Serbian society and/or a Chetnik voivoda for a source. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Thank you. It is written in the article: ''"He escaped three months later"''. Do you think that article is not properly sourced?--] (]) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::Which article? Either way, what I said stands: the point is that he allowed his troops to be '''''peacefully disarmed''''' - ''that'' is indicative of collaboration. Whether he was imprisoned or not, he soon re-instated himself in the service of the Germans. Being imprisoned is not in itself an act of resistance. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== About Cohen == |
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 out of 5 stars from http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/product-reviews/0890967601/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/176-8108485-2189606?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Cohen's ghost-writer?, April 7, 2012 By John P. Maher (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)''' |
|
|
|
|
|
''This review is from: Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History (Eugenia & Hugh M. Stewart '26 Series on Eastern Europe) (Paperback)'' |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
In today's New World Order we too have "brilliant outsiders" to the field of Balkan studies writing "long awaited" books. One of these is said to have produced a revolutionary account of Serbia's Secret War This is Dr Philip Cohen MD, a dermatologist. He has no credentials in Balkan studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
"This book," as we are told by the Series Editor, Stjepan (Stipe) Mestrovic, scion of the famed Yugoslav clan, is "the second in a series on Eastern European Studies. The first was by Serbophobe Norman Cigar (no joke). Dr Cohen has, we are to believe, mastered in the brief span of a couple years, the skill of writing a reasonable facsimile of academic historians' prose and has metabolized reams of Balkan chronicles. Already in 1992 our dermatologist served as expert on the Clinton-Gore transition team. What godfather planted him there? Dr Cohen's Balkanological achievements are the more remarkable for his inability to read Serbo-Croatian. To overcome this handicap Dr Cohen "headed," one reviewer tells us, "a team of translators." Tell me, please: How does one go about "heading a team of translators", especially when one is not a translator? The identity of the translators nor is unknown as is the location of the archive in which the translations have been deposited Typographically, too, Cohen book's has over-generous margins and spacing that increase the bulk of the book by about a third over a normally produced book. School kids call it "padding". |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a laudatory foreword from the pen of David Riesman, not a dermatologist, but Professor Emeritus of the Harvard University Department of Sociology and author of the best-seller, The Lonely Crowd. Like Dr Cohen, Professor Riesman, is unfettered by a preparation in Balkan studies Riesman even, Mestroviæ tells us, skipped sociology, for he "came to Sociology from Law ." Lawyer-sociologist-Balkanologist Riesman writes that Serbia is a country in which " illiterates could rise to leadership and even to the monarchy." That sounds like late medieval Western Europe. Dr Riesman may have had in mind the likes of Milos Obrenovic, but leaves the impression that his illiteracy was the fruit of autochthonous Serb culture, when it was really the necessary consequence of Islamic precept, the Turkish Kanun i Raya -- "Law for the Slaves." Muslim policy towards infidels was--and still is--take Sudan, for example--identical to the English Penal Laws in Ireland, but it seems to have slipped Mr Riesman's mind that 14th century Serbia's Tsar Dusan Silni stood out among contemporary West European monarchs in that Dusan "the Mighty" knew how to read and write. In a wee oversight Dr Riesman has omitted Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, from whom Goethe learnt, unlike Dr Cohen, to read Serbian. To cap it all off, "Serbia's Secret War" is not Cohen's book, but was ghost-written by someone whose native language is non-English, which any competent linguist can immediately see by key words of phrases that no English-speaker could ever have written. Could it possibly been Stjepan Mestrovic? |
|
|
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
--] (]) 14:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: so lots of Serbs didn't like what he had to say? Who cares? It's irrelevant here on WP. |
|
|
: Utter rubbish. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked by Hoare, who says he saw the manuscript and made some comments on it. Absolute unmitigated Serbian POV rot. Wake up to yourself. ] (]) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*My friend, I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter. That makes me free to see and read the Serbian point of views. Needles to say that we are all obliged to respect the sacred Misplaced Pages rule: Neutrality. I hate to say so, but I see in your comment a strong bias. I found more negative reviews of the Cohen's book in another book reviews. It's strange to me that a dermatologist (I was informed before he was a dentist) wrote a book of such kind. Here I can accept only that John P. Maher is John P. Maher. Serb or not, does it matter?--] (]) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:An amazon review? Brb making a 5 star review. The "]" is the cherry on top to this "Serbian POV rot" as Peacemaker put it. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::No bias. I just have a sense that an editor seeking to remove a book praised by a Cambridge don as 'very good', because it doesn't align with their point of view, is probably not interested in WP policy but probably has a POV to push. I'm not a Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either. Living in Australia makes it a bit hard to vote in Croatian elections, and not having any voting rights there doesn't help. Personally, I'd like to vote in the Wiggywack council elections, but they won't let me either. ] (]) 14:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To be completely honest, I'm not Pavelic's HOP nor Tudjman's HDZ voter either, and I have to say I recall Cohen was rejected on good grounds as an unreliable source in some previous discussion or other... negative peer reviews were cited. I ''honestly'' can't remember when it was, though. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Director, the matter was taken back to RSN by User:Juraj Budak (I had taken it there a few weeks prior and only one editor provided a view), and a consensus is still (hopefully) forming. PRODUCER and I have been belting this thing around for a while. I have found it hard to accept that Cohen appears in the bibliography of Ramet's 3Y & Hoare's G&R but it's supposedly unreliable. Mostly it is to do with Djurisic's Iron Cross, but in general Cohen's pretty unpopular with some of our fellow editors. ] (]) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Berane II == |
|
|
{{Not resolved|in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator}} |
|
|
Besides sources presented in there is additional sources which supports the assertion that Djurisic captured Berane during uprising: |
|
|
* ''"le capitaine Pavlé Djurisic prit la ville de Berané et s'empara du chef de régiment avec toutes ses troupes"'' (translation: Captain Pavle Djurisic took the town of Berane and seized the regimental commander with all his troops) - , Dragan Sotirović, 1972 |
|
|
* ''"o come il capitano Pavle DjuriSic, che dopo aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane nel luglio 1941 si era assicurato una zona d'influenza nel Montenegro centro-orientale"'' (translation:or as the captain Pavle Djurisic, who after successfully led the attack on the garrison of Berane in July 1941 had secured an area of influence in central and eastern Montenegro) - ; Francesco Caccamo, 2008 |
|
|
* "''In the July uprising of 1941, Pavle Djurishich organized a blockade of Berane against the Italian occupier, during which he distinguished himself. After intense fighting, the Italians surrendered. Thus Berane was liberated by Vasojevici patriots.''" - ; Bosko S. Vukcevich - 1990--] (]) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::As far as I know it is entirely possible. July 1941 was well before the start of Chetnik collaboration. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 08:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
* (translation: under command of Pavle Djurisic on 17 July began strong attack on Italian garrison in Berane) - Glasnik Srpskog istorijsko-kulturnog društva "Njegoš"., Volumes 5-8, Srpsko istorijsko-kulturno društvo "Njegoš" u Americi - 1960--] (]) 08:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes alright, you've made your point. He'd have to be a pretty extreme collaborator to have begun cooperation with the Axis as early as July 1941. It took even Pećanac until mid August (though please don't quote the magazine of the "Serbian Historical-Cultural society ''Njegoš'' in America" anymore, lol). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 08:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The only point he's made is his incredible willingness to continue his POV pushing in an endless cycle of dumping ridiculous and dubious sources on this talkpage, this time under the guise of "Berane II". None of the sources are even remotely scholarly. The Dragan M. Sotirović source, a Chetnik commander, and the Serbian Historical-Cultural Society Njegoš source in particular exemplify this absurd length of POV pushing. --<font face="xx-medium serif">◅ ]</font></font> <small>(])</small></font> 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please be so kind to follow ] and ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor."''--] (]) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes your sources are something of a riot for their bias, but I'm reasonably certain Đurišić did, in fact, take Berane early in the war - if I recall correctly with Partisan help. Before he turned traitor completely, that is. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I am willing to discuss the Francesco Caccamo citation though, what is the reliability of this book? Anyone do Italian? ] (]) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm a little rusty, but yeah, I can read the thing. Yes, Đurišić distinguished himself in the battle at Berane. Here's ] who, while criticizing Đurišić, makes a note of his exploits at Berane . Not the most neutral of sources as such, but I think we can be certain he would not exaggerate the exploits of the Chetniks. The July 13 uprising was a joint undertaking by both nationalists and Partisans in Montenegro, and Đilas himself (a Partisan commander) was an important actor. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 08:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Djilas is already in the article as a source for Djurisic 'distinguishing himself' at Berane. But does it say he "captured Berane during the uprising"? ] (]) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Caccamo above does say he "successfully led an attack" on Berane ("''aver guidato con successo l'attacco contro il presidio di Berane''"). I think we can assume he took it and distinguished himself in so doing. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::If that's what it says, I'll stick to what it says. We quickly get on a slippery slope on this article. ] (]) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Resolved, the sense of the Caccamo and Monzali quote (thanks Director) which appears to be "above board" has been incorporated into the article. ] (]) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The point was that he captured Berane from Italians. That is very important fact that should be clearly presented to the readers, both in the lead section and the body of the article.--] (]) 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Then you need a WP:RS for it, not the scribbling of a former Chetnik. It appears the consensus is that you don't have one at present. Until you do... ] (]) 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
== Officers and commissars - Pavlowitch p76 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The text reads <blockquote>Differences between officers (still mostly uniformed, and in command) and communists (who were organising the movement, and placing their 'politikoms'-political commissars) had appeared almost immediately...</blockquote> This text supports the material that says <blockquote>Officers were in command with the communists doing the organisation and providing political commissars</blockquote>. ] (]) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
Most the recent edits are from a doctoral thesis. This should only be used very carefully, and given the association of the candidate with the revisionist historian Kosta Nikolic, anything controversial is going to be closely scrutinised, and will need corroboration. ] (]) 02:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:People's Liberation Movement - NOP, not uprising in which nationalists and peasants were not subordinated to communist organization or commissars. On the same page it is written: |
|
|
:* ''"<u>Carried on the surge that was difficult to control, the officers"</u> were not able to challenge communists' organisation while <u>the communists were not able to find enough officers whom they can control</u>"'' |
|
|
--] (]) 07:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wrong, that is not what the text says. That material is in the context of the uprising, which would be obvious to "Blind Freddy" because the next line relates to Djilas (a communist) trying to get Stanisic (a nationalist) to accept overall military command. Of what? The uprising of course. This is prior to 18 July. ] (]) 07:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:About number of killed in Bijelo Polje srez Živković writes: |
|
::Please do not misrepresent sources, Antidiskriminator. This isn't the first time. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Ђуришић је јавио Михаиловићу да је на муслиманској страни погинуло око 400 бораца и 1.000 жена и деце.2929 Њихово страдање је међутим, била знатно веће. Албански министар Ћазим Блаца (Qazim Bllaca) писао је 26. јануара новоизабраном председнику владе Екрему Љибохови (Ekrem Libohoven), како је на подручју Горњег и Доњег Бихора убијено 7.600 људи, а у Тутин, Рожаје, Петњицу и Бјело Поље избегло око 14.000 муслимана.Радило се ипак, о преувеличаној цифри, будући да је Љибохова 30. јануара преко тутинског префекта добио детаљан извештај од стране „представника избеглица из Бихора“. У њему стоји да је током четничке акције убијено: 775 мушкараца (од тога 185 „масакрираних“), 625 жена (од тога 285 масакрираних) и чак, 1.406 деце разног узраста. Укупно 2.806 лица. |
|
:::* Here is what Pavlovic actually says about uprising in his work: |
|
|
|
:translated into: |
|
:::#page 75: ''"Officers assumed command while communists <u>did their best</u> to inject some organisation and <u>to take over</u>...."'' - Yes, they did they best to take over. And failed to take over. |
|
|
|
:Đurišić informed Mihailović that about 400 soldiers and 1,000 women and children had died on the Muslim side.2929 However, their suffering was significantly greater. On January 26, Albanian Minister Qazim Bllaca wrote to the newly elected Prime Minister Ekrem Libohoven that 7,600 people were killed in the area of Gornji and Donji Bihor, and about 14,000 Muslims fled to Tutin, Rožaje, Petnjica and Bjelo Polje. It was, however, an exaggerated figure, since on January 30 Libohoven received a detailed report from the "representative of refugees from Bihor" through the prefect of Tutin. It states that during the Chetnik operation, 775 men were killed (of which 185 were "massacred"), 625 women (of which 285 were massacred) and even 1,406 children of various ages. A total of 2,806 persons. |
|
:::#"The insurgents had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern '''according to districts and clans'''. - The insurgents were not subordinated nor organized by communists. They <u>"had gone back to the traditional pre-1914 levy pattern according to districts and clans"</u>. |
|
|
|
:About February attack: |
|
:::#'''The main commanders''' to emerge were Colonel Bajo Stanišić, ... Major Đorđe Lašić .... and '''Captain Pavle Đurišić'''." - The article does not mention that Pavle Đurišić was one of the main commanders of the uprising. That is very important information which should be presented to the readers both in the lede of the article and in the main body of the article. Milovan Djilas and his mention of Djurisic's distinction during the battle of Berane is unclear and misleading. |
|
|
|
:Цифре из Ђуришићевог исказа се међутим, морају посматрати са великом дозом опреза. На првом месту, документ је настао само неколико дана после завршетка акције током којих је било немогуће евидентирати толики број жртава, обзиром на: широку област где су спровођене операције, велики број спаљених села, обилне снежне падавине и чињенице да су Италијани са одласком црногорских четника почели да врше интезивне рације хапсећи и сукобљавајући се са свим особама затеченим на згариштима муслиманских села у унутрашњости Пљеваљског, Прибојског и Чајничког среза.Навешћемо затим, извештај статистичке секције Одбора за збрињавање муслиманских избеглица у Пљевљима, а о страдању муслиманског становништва почетком фебруара 1943. године на територији Пљеваљског и дела Прибојског среза. Детаљан попис страдалих лица, попаљених села и кућа рађен је два месеца и завршен 18. априла. Он предат и влади НДХ. Према њему на разне начине снаге ЈВуО-а су усмртиле 1.352 лица, међу којима 1.107 жена, деце и стараца. Имена свих жртава су пописана (АЈ, фонд 110, ДКРЗ, кут. 341, стр. 130–135; ЗМП, ИО, фонд 4, НОБ, Непријатељска грађа, инв. бр. 42, стр. 1–4); После рата Удружење бораца Пљевља је по именима и месту рођења пописало 1.419 жртава четничког похода из фебруара 1943. године само на територији Пљеваљског среза (V. Dedijer, A. Miletić, nav. del., str. 768–836); Сличан попис становништва направио је и Месни народни одбор КПЈ-а из Фоче. У њему се тврди, додуше без навођења имена, да је само на простору Прибојског среза ликвидирано 1.106 особа. Сабирањем ове две цифре близу смо Ђуришићевог навода о 2.700 убијених људи, укључујући и борце. Група људи даље, предвођена сакупљачем народних песама и гусларом Џемаилом Арнаутовићем саставила је списак убијених муслимана на територији Прибојског среза и обајвила га 2005. године. Током пописа којег је према речима Арнаутовића спровело 112 особа, прибележена су имена 2.473 особе који су биле убијене од стране снага ЈВуО-а. Списак се односи на страдале током јануара 1942. и фебруара 1943. године, укључујући и борачко становништво. Велика већина је изгубила живот током другог напада, али попис не говори која је жртва када страдала (Dž. Arnautović, nav. del., str. 111, 116– 187); Иако се ради о приватној иницијативи истаживача – аматера, ове бројке се морају узети у разматрање. Уколико их прихватимо, долазимо до броја од нешто мање од 3.892 убијена муслимана у Прибојском и Пљеваљском срезу (због оних убијених почетком 1942. године). Овај списак међутим, још увек чека на документовану научно-методолошку потврду. Било којој прихваћеној цифри би требало додати и страдале муслимане током исте акције у Чајничком и Фочанском срезу. Оне срећом, услед правовремене евакуације локалних муслимана преко Дрине, нису велике. Према подацима ДКРЗ-а од 626 убијених муслимана на простору Чајничког среза током окупације, само је око 200 лица страдало током 1943. године. За већину такође, није био утврђен датум смрти. Исто важи и за Фочански срез, где је од 3.525 муслиманских жртава у току рата око 150 лица страдало фебруара 1943. године (V. Dedijer, A. Miletić, nav. del., str. 640–694, 723–734); На крају, колики год да су били губици које је муслимански живаљ претрпео фебруара 1943. године у ова четири среза, они су доста мањи од оних које је навео мајор Ђуришић у обраћању Михаиловићу 13. фебруара 1943. године. |
|
:::# "Albanian and Muslim irregulars from border areas ... moved ahead and secured their (Italian) flanks... In the process, dozens of villages were burned down, hundreds of inhabitants were executed, 10,000—20,000 were interned, and the irregulars were allowed to loot and burn freely for a while." - The article does not mention hundreds executed inhabitants and those who were interned by Albanian and Muslim irregulars. <u>Emphasizing that Đurišić and his Chetniks were ''"impatient to continue with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians in the region"'' without presenting information about conduct of Muslim and Albanian irregulars is against NPOV and could mislead readers.</u> |
|
|
|
:or translated: |
|
:::# "Local notables wanted resistance to be continued only against those Muslims who were acting against their Christian neighbours. Embittered communists turned against peasant mentality, as only ideologically committed continued to fight." - Again proof that insurgents were not subordinated to communists. |
|
|
|
:The figures from Đurišić's testimony, however, must be viewed with a great deal of caution. In the first place, the document was created only a few days after the end of the action, during which it was impossible to record such a large number of victims, considering: the wide area where the operations were carried out, the large number of burnt villages, heavy snowfall and the fact that the Italians, with the departure of the Montenegrin Chetniks, began to carry out intensive raids, arresting and confronting all persons found at the burning sites of Muslim villages in the interior of the Pljevlja, Priboj and Čajnica regions.We will then cite the report of the statistical section of the Committee for the Care of Muslim Refugees in |
|
:::# "Having heard of Ustasha and German terror most people felt that it was safer to tolerate the Italians, such as they were. Armed groups " - To <u>tolerate Italians</u> because have heard of Ustasha and German terror. I think it might be valuable information for better understanding the context of Djurisic's collaboration with Italians. |
|
|
|
:Pljevlja, and about the suffering of the Muslim population at the beginning of February 1943 the territory of Pljevlja and part of Priboj county. Detailed list of victims, burned villages and the house was built for two months and finished on April 18. They was also handed over to the NDH government. According to them on various JVuO forces killed 1,352 people, including 1,107 women, children and the elderly. Names of the victims were listed. After the war, the Pljevlja Veterans Association is named after place of birth listed 1,419 victims of the Chetnik campaign from February 1943 only on in the territory of the Pljeval county similar list population was also made by the Local People's Committee of the KPJ from Foča. It claims, albeit without naming, that 1,106 people were liquidated in the area of Pribojski srez alone By adding these two figures, we are close to Đurišić's allegation of 2,700 people killed, including fighters. A group of people further on, led by folk song collector and fiddler Džemail Arnautović, compiled a list of Muslims killed in the territory of the Priboj County and published it in 2005. During the census, which, according to Arnautović, was carried out by 112 people, the names of 2,473 people who were killed by JVuO forces were recorded. The list refers to those who died during January 1942 and February 1943, including the military population. The vast majority lost their lives during the second attack, but the census does not say which victim died when. Although it is a private initiative of amateur researchers, these figures must be taken into consideration. If we accept them, we arrive at a number of slightly less than 3,892 Muslims killed in the Priboj and Pljeval counties (due to those killed at the beginning of 1942). This list, however, is still waiting for a documented scientific-methodological confirmation. Any accepted figure should also include the Muslims who died during the same action in Čajniče and Foča srez. Fortunately, due to the timely evacuation of local Muslims across the Drina, they are not large. According to DKRZ data, out of 626 Muslims killed in the area of Čajnički srez during the occupation, only about 200 people died in 1943. For the majority, too, the date of death was not determined. The same is true for the Foča section, where out of 3,525 Muslim victims during the war, around 150 persons perished in February 1943. In the end, whatever the losses Muslim population suffered in February In 1943, in these four counties, they are much smaller than those mentioned by Major Đurišić in |
|
:::# '''<u>The main aim of the rebellion had been achieved once the setting up the client state of Montenegro had been stopped</u>'''. - I had to go trough Golgotha before first shy information about 12 July declaration of independence of Montenegro was added to the article. |
|
|
|
:address to Mihailović on February 13, 1943. |
|
:::# Yes you are right about Djilas. ''"Djilas tried and failed to get Stanisic to accept overall military command"'' - <u>which is another proof that Stanisic and his nationalists were not organized by communist commissars</u>. |
|
|
|
:I also wanted to mention in some capacity historian Radanović work "Noć osvetljena lomačama sa kojih se dizao plamen do neba..." Zločini JVuO nad muslimanskim stanovništvom u Pribojskom srezu februara 1943.(2019)(trans. "A night illuminated by bonfires from which flames rose to the sky..." Crimes of JVuO against the Muslim population in Priboj County in February 1943.) On the topic at hand - number of killed during February massacres: |
|
:::* '''Conclusion''': Yes. There is extreme misinterpretation of the sources. The more I get involved with this article, the more misinterpretations I discover. --] (]) 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Broj poginulih pripadnika Muslimanske milicije koji su izgubili život u borbama protiv JVuO tokom februarske vojne |
|
|
:operacije bio je nekoliko puta manji, možda i desetak puta manji, od broja koji navodi Đurišić (oko 1.200). Broj ubijenih civila koji pominje Đurišić (do 8.000) dvostruko je uveličan u odnosu na realan broj ubijenih muslimanskih civila od 5. do 13.2.1943, pri čemu, za razliku od Đurišića, mislim i na muškarce civile, ne samo na žene, decu i starce. Prema mojoj proceni, nakon 13.2.1943, odnos no nakon datuma kada je Đurišić poslao izveštaj Mihailoviću, na području Pribojskog i Pljevaljskog sreza ubijeno je između 1.000 i 2.000 Muslimana, pri čemu se većina odnosi na stanovnike Pribojskog sreza. Istorijska nauka još uvek nije dala odgovor na pitanje koliko je Muslimana stradalo u četničkom teroru od 5. do 25.2.1943. na području zapadnog Sandžaka i gornjeg Podrinja. Prema mojoj proceni, u tom razdoblju JVuO je ubila preko 5.000 Muslimana, ogromnom većinom civila, pod uslovom da naučno bude dokazano da je u Pribojskom srezu ubijeno oko 2.379 osoba, koliko ih poimenice navodi Arnautovićev spisak. Da li je i koliko je realan broj stradalih veći od 5.000 pokazaće buduća istraživanja. U svakom slučaju, moja pretpostavka je da je broj žrtava veći od 5.000. Moja istraživanja vezana za stradanje stanovnika Pljevaljskog sreza, koja nameravam predstaviti u jednom drugom radu, pokazala su da u tri spiska žrtava postoje poimenični podaci za oko 1.987 muslimanskih stanovnika Pljevaljskog sreza koji su ubijeni februara 1943, tokom i nakon vojne operacije JVuO. |
|
|
:or translated |
|
|
:The number of dead members of the Muslim militia who lost their lives in the fighting against the JVuO during the February military |
|
|
:operations was several times smaller, perhaps ten times smaller, than the number stated by Đurišić (about 1,200). The number of killed civilians mentioned by Đurišić (up to 8,000) is doubled compared to the real number of Muslim civilians killed from 5 to 13 February 1943, where, unlike Đurišić, I am also referring to male civilians, not only women, children and old man. According to my estimation, after February 13, 1943, the date when Đurišić sent the report to Mihailović, between 1,000 and 2,000 Muslims were killed in the area of Priboj and Pljevlja County, with the majority referring to the inhabitants of Priboj County. Historical science has not yet given an answer to the question of how many Muslims perished in Chetnik terror from February 5 to 25, 1943. in the area of western Sandžak and upper Podrinje. According to my estimation, in that period JVuO killed over 5,000 Muslims, the vast majority of them civilians, provided that it is scientifically proven that around 2,379 people were killed in the Priboj County, as many as Arnautović's list states by name. Whether and to what extent the real number of victims is greater than 5,000 will be shown by future research. In any case, my guess is that the number of victims is higher than 5,000. My research related to the suffering of the residents of Pljevaljski srez, which I intend to present in another paper, showed that in three lists of victims there are name data for about 1,987 Muslim residents of Pljevalja Countywho were killed in February 1943, during and after the military operation JVuO. ] (]) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is very weak and based mainly on supposition and amateur work. I don't think any of it can be used in Wikivoice, especially given the fact he readily admits the numbers are not known with any clarity. He readily admits he is guessing. ] (]) 11:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fair, it is an educated guess. Probably best not to change anything for now, until there is more work done about massacres in both Bijelo Polje County in January, as well as 4 Counties in February. ] (]) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC) |
Most the recent edits are from a doctoral thesis. This should only be used very carefully, and given the association of the candidate with the revisionist historian Kosta Nikolic, anything controversial is going to be closely scrutinised, and will need corroboration. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
