Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:42, 18 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pavle Đurišić article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

	Pavle Đurišić is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 10, 2012 Good article nominee Listed July 18, 2012 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 23, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 28, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pavle Đurišić article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bosnia and Herzegovina Mid‑importance Pavle Đurišić is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Montenegro Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia Mid‑importance Pavle Đurišić is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Proposal for assessment as A-Class

July uprising

Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists

The text of the article says:

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

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

sorry for not responding to this earlier. It doesn't say that at all, please re-read it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-read it. It still says that:

1. In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists.
2. the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated

I am afraid that readers could be mislead that uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources say what they say. I haven't misrepresented them, or omitted anything from them that is relevant to this question. If you are aware of a WP:RS that makes it clear that Djurisic wasn't ever subordinated to the communists, or that clarifies this issue so the supposed implication is dealt with, please share. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: What impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?

Answer: That uprising was indeed "led by the communists" who were leaders while nationalists had only participated, i.e. being subordinated to the communists.

This article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source which says that he was one of the organizers of the uprising: "Histoire Du Peuple Serbe" - Dusan-T Batakovic, p.323 "il fut l'organisateur de l'insurrection contre les occupants Italiens en 1941

Based on above mentioned explanations I propose not to mislead the readers anymore and to clarify that Djurisic was not subordinated to the communists being only a participant in their uprising. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You will need a source for that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron cross controversy

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

"There are claims." Bring reliable sources to the table not just some hearsay. Also Misplaced Pages is absolutely disinterested in your original research. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it is "my original research"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "my original research"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be trolling... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually AntiD, it is original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. You have brought the claim here, so you need to back it up with a WP:RS. I am aware of the 'claim' but have never seen a WP:RS that supports it. Without a WP:RS, there is no controversy and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be original research only if no reliable, published sources exist to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And your comment was not constructive, because you were raising an issue without a WP:RS for it. I could go to any article and make a comment on a conspiracy theory about that subject and it would not be constructive. You have no source, you raised it, so your comment is WP:OR until you do, and with respect, I will be ignoring it until a source is provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Books:

• Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) - 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
• то би било само то да је један назови новинар, чувши у каквој крчми надлагивања, а мећу њима и да је војвода Павле Ђуришић добио Гвоздени крст од Фирера, вест коју би у том случају могао да лансира један партизански - General Milan Nedić, Том 2, Stanislav Krakov

Press

• Ralević danas podvaljuje da su Nemci, odnosno Hitler, odlikovali Pavla Đurišića gvozdenim krstom. Tu laž, koja je objavljena u listu »Lovćen« 1944. godine, demantovao je i autor Đorđe Moskojević, bivši kapetan GESTAPO-a i agent NKVD-a, odnosno saradnik komunista. Cilj mu je bio, kako je sam izjavio, da naškodi četničkom pokretu, stoji u Šćekićevom reagovanju na izjave beranskih boraca. - Glas Javnosti, Interview with Dragoljub Šćekić who is President of the Board for building of the memorial to Pavle Djurisic
• Iz njegovih romansiranih biografija, koje obiluju apokrifnim izvorima, osporava se da je u jesen 1944. dobio Željezni krst – njemačko vojno odlikovanje. - Vladimir Jovanović "(Zlo)upotreba istorije", 19 August 2011, Monitoring- Number 1087
• KRST - FALSIFIKAT ZA pavla Đurišića protivnici rehabilitacije Draže Mihailovića navode da je od Hitlera dobio gvozdeni krst. - To je istorijski falsifikat - kaže Dimitrijević. - Historian Bojan Dimitrijević, Večernje Novosti
• Kosta Nikolić: Podatak da je Pavle Đurišić dobio Hitlerov gvozdeni krst je falsifikat istorije - Historian Kosta Nikolić, Večernje Novosti
• Сведок: Пре рушења челници беранског СУБНОР-а обратили су се јавности саопштењем у коме кажу да се противе изградњи споменика "зликовцу, ратном злочинцу и издајнику Павлу Ђуришићу, о чијем лажном патриотизму најбоље говори крст којим је одликован од стране Хитлера". Да ли та тврдња одговара историјској истини? Милослав Самарџић: Не, наравно. То је само комунистичка пропаганда. - Interview of Miloslav Samardžić to Svedok magazine, published on Pogledi website.

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

As I have pointed out several times, I don't read the lingo. When I see a translation into English by a disinterested sr-5 en Wikipedian translator and we can assess the reliability of the sources, or PRODUCER can read it and forms a view about the reliability of the sources, then we can discuss. Until then it's just a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably provide English translations and context for the quotations if you want to be taken seriously by non Serbo-Croatian speakers. You are on English Misplaced Pages after all. Unsurprisingly every source is a non-peer reviewed, non-scholarly, and unreliable Serbian work. How you can criticize Cohen and then bring a government gazette, a book by a collaborator, a bunch of yellow press and tabloid articles, and even a website dedicated solely to Chetnik apologism is beyond me. The first "book" is actually an official gazette of the FRY government which you were told before. The second is a biography on Milan Nedic written by Stanislav Krakov who was the head of propaganda for ZBOR and Nedic's "relative and close coworker." As for the rest, Serbian yellow press and tabloids that are not worth the paper their printed on. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I take it 'yellow press' is like 'tabloid journalism' here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with Stanislav Krakov as source before and I think that it's much worse than that. Another user had been making extensive use of Stanislav Krakov on Gligor Sokolovic and Antidiskriminator was insisting that he's RS even when I pointed out that he was editor-in-chief of the Belgrade-based collaborationist newspaper Obnova. However, arguments shouldn't have been needed at all as the details and "facts" from his works were so disturbing that I had to ask for admin intervention in order to remove such info. Btw PRODUCER since you're knowledgeable regarding Yugoslav/Croatian/Serbian sources would you evaluate Smilja Avramov as a source? --— ZjarriRrethues —  12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Krakov was not removed as source from Gligor Sokolović. On the contrary, he is used more than 100 times as reference in that article.

@ZjarriRrethues, your invitation is another example of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing connected with Vulnetari article. First you invited Peacemaker67 and now PRODUCER. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

No WP:RS has been produced to substantiate this supposed "controversy", and I propose to close this thread on that basis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists

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:

• "In late October 1941, Colonel (later General) Draža Mihailović, the Chetnik leader in Serbia came to the conclusion that his principal enemies were the Partisans, not the Axis forces. From the beginning of 1942, this attitude was clearly reflected in Montenegro in relations between the Chetnik and separatist forces on the one hand, and Partisans on the other."

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

You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was when the split developed, it says that was when Mihailovic's attitude towards the Partisans was reflected in the relations between the various forces from the beginning of 1942. If you are suggesting some additional information could be added to clarify when the split occurred in Montenegro I accept that, and will add something shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to clarify when the spilt between partisans and nationalists in Montenegro developed. Otherwise readers could be mislead to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify, I cannot understand your phraseology "developed until". Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star

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

The Iron Cross award is highly notable, but it is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the main text. It also appears in the caption of an image. There was no information about when he was awarded the Star of Karageorge so I could put in the right section chronologically, so I put it in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the image. I forgot about it. That means that this is even more against WP:NPOV because mentioning Iron Cross in the caption of an image means that there is additionally a collage picture of two pages regarding the Iron Cross.

Karađorđe's star is also very notable award. It is against WP:NPOV to give so much more weight to information about award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to him by Yugoslav government.

There was information about when it was awarded. After Durmitor operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as their relative notability, the Order of Karageorge was awarded to quite a number of Chetnik commanders, but only one Chetnik commander I am aware of was awarded the Iron Cross, which makes it more exceptional (ie it is a unique award to a Chetnik, unlike the Star). I listed the Star first in the infobox because it is standard practice to include indigenous awards before foreign ones, and that is as it should be. Your NPOV accusations are wrongheaded. The policy says 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' My point is that it is mentioned once in the lead, once in the text, and given the exceptional nature of the award, the text is supported by the image. I would not be against including an image of the entitlement document for his Star if one was available, but I am not aware of one. The Iron Cross is fairly and proportionately represented when you take into account the uniqueness of the award. I see no bias in supporting the text with an image. And by the way, which Durmitor operation are we talking about and where is the source that says what date the award occurred? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was military operation conducted in August 1944.

Jozo Tomasevich mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after that Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded. On the other hand, Karađorđe's star was very rarely awarded only for exceptional merit. Even if it is undisputed that Đurišić ever received it (which is not) I still believe that it is against wp:npov to give so much more weight to information about Iron Cross award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to Đurišić by Yugoslav government.

I propose to remove lede sentence and image collage with its caption.

That way iron cross information would remain in the infobox and once in the text of the article, like information about Karađorđe's star. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross." - Yes, it is this source written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: According to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that some sources that Maclean was aware of said that he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved:

1. There is nothing unique with this award which was given to almost anybody (more than five million totally) comparing to Karadjordje's star which was given to very limited number of people.
2. Iron Cross assertion is based on unreliable source.
3. Iron Cross assertion is disputed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, whatever chief. Please stop with the 'Resolved' and 'Unresolved' nonsense per PRODUCERs comments earlier. My point about resolving a few of these sections is that the 'label' you are using just reflects in what areas the article disagrees with your point of view. It is a personal view of yours, doesn't mean anything to the community and is completely pointless. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

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

One review is not the sole factor to determining a source's reliability or its use. The claims in the article that are attributed to Cohen's book have citations to primary sources in the book and, as even that review indicates, "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was Cohen's book which supports very important (and disputed) assertion about Iron Cross. Not primary source like "note a" says. It is wrong to attribute Iron Cross assertion to primary source (which nobody saw) just because it is mentioned in unreliable Cohen's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is Ignoratio elenchi, the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issues in question. Instead of fallacies it is better to deal with issues. The issues in question are:

1. unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
2. referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in another section. I find your comment "You answer a question for a change" unnecessarily harsh.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is over. If you feel you can make a comment stating that it is disputed (above), refer to a section where you produced no WP:RS for the supposed dispute, then insist that YOUR question be answered, this clearly is going nowhere fast. There has to be mutual acceptance of the need for the discussion, and as far as I am concerned you have abjectly failed to bring anything to the table to dispute it. Maclean states that 'according to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans'. Maclean's book was published in 1957, Cohen's in 1999. Cohen references several things to that paragraph in his book, including Kostic, Parezanin and Stefanovic as well as the primary source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You overlooked the point. I will underline it: This section is not about Iron Cross dispute. This section is about two important issues of this article: using unreliable source ('Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War') and referencing the primary source to support assertion which is in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN due to its perceived slanting of facts to suit a conclusion (my summary). However, as PRODUCER has already pointed out, the review in question stated "no falsifications of history appear in its pages.". So unless you have a WP:RS that disputes the Iron Cross (ie indicates that there is a falsification in Cohen, specifically about the Iron Cross), there is no basis for removing that citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". It should not be used to support assertions in this article. All assertions based on this work, including microfilm assertion which is also based on Cohen's work, should be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what was said. If you are so sure that is what was meant, then feel free to take this specific issue back to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what you said. I quoted you. You and PRODUCER insisted on RS many times on this talkpage, just search word reliable and look for yourself. Now, when the source you used is found unreliable you insist on using it, although you refused to use many other sources just because you claimed they are not reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Other editors do not agree the book is unreliable so do not reinsert your frivolous tags. Do not claim it's unreliable when the sole review brought up at RSN even states "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." Do not claim it's disputed without bringing reliable sources of your own. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you overlooked that Peacemaker67 admited: "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". Until RS is found the references based on Cohen should be appropriately tagged. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fifelfoo is a reliable source for the determination of the reliability of sources? Don't make me laugh. I've de-tagged Cohen in the biblio, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast Peacemaker67. You should present Atilla's website on RSN and gain consensus there before you proclaim victory of your POV.

1. Your rationale and "re-considering of your position" is wrong and based on fact picking. There are other reviews of Cohen's book which are not so afirmative, like this review.
2. Even Atilla admits that Cohen was not a professional historian or academicblog link.
3. Atilla has been reported for his false statements and fake quotes published on his personal website. Here is what this complaint says about Atila's postings: "these posting contain false statements, fake quotes, and personalized smears. And Hoare not only impugns my academic research; he impugns my moral character as well. Taken as a whole, Hoare’s methods violate basic norms of academic conduct." - signed by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History

Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious because you refuse to accept independent input of RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, there are three editors here disputing your inserting those tags vs your lone self being oh-so-wiki-insistent. See WP:OAS; this is an FA and you're not to tag it lightly; not at all in the face of a consensus against doing so, here on talk.. I've {{resolved}} this thread. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am not alone. There is important independent input (don't forget that two editors who support Cohen are very much involved) at RSN which says that Cohen is not RS.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here is more toward amateurism of the book and book author.--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A song

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

again, have never heard of it, and have not been able to locate a WP:RS in English for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ђуришићу млад мајоре - There are many sources that could be used as reference for song about Durisic. This song is very popular and interpreted by numerous performers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

and which of these would you suggest is a WP:RS? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think there is a need to support this assertion about this very popular song with the source of exceptional reliability? I don't think so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, verifiability, not truth. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Any of the presented sources can be used to support song assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You say it is/was popular. What do the WP:RS say? YouTube vids are just ridiculous at this class of article. So far as I am concerned, you need a WP:RS for its existence and popularity if it is to be included. There is nothing I can find in en, so you need to find something in sr and translate it. Don't link a pile of Google results. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, even I can work out that the first two hits are Radomir J. Ostojic (a Montenegrin Chetnik) and Ratko Parezanin (Ljotic's secretary) who was Ljotic's liaison officer with Djurisic when he commanded the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same Parežanin who you used to support disputed iron cross assertion based on unreliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What dispute? Again, what WP:RS do you have that disputes the award of the Iron Cross to Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, giving undue weight to the controversial Iron Cross award is very big problem with this article which violates WP:NPOV. But Iron Cross controversy is subject of the discussion in another section.

This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić.

You used unreliable source to support Iron Cross award giving it undue weight and violating WP:NPOV. When the source you used was "considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN" you tried to defend your POV supporting it with work of Parežanin. Now you refuse to add information about the notable song dedicated to Đurišić also based on the same Parežanin. Someone who doesn't AGF in your case could see your editing as tendentious and disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are three secondary sources for the Iron Cross, two of Cohen, and one of Maclean. I have repeated (and I believe PRODUCER has too) that even the pretty negative review of Cohen 1996 that Fifelfoo produced states that "No falsifications of history appear in its pages, but several dubious historiographical practices are employed in its condemnation of the Serbs". That means that the contents haven't been falsified but the conclusions he draws in the book are dubious. The Iron Cross is not a conclusion drawn by Cohen, it is a fact he has presented. On that basis, I see no reason why he cannot be used for individual facts, but I would be very careful only to use his conclusions if they were supported by reliable sources. Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre. Your accusation of undue weight and violating NPOV is just wrongheaded and reveals your own consistent POV-pushing. As far as the song is concerned, have yet to see a WP:RS for it. When you produce one, we can discuss.

If there is anything bizarre it is your insisting on sources which you and PRODUCER consider RS for not such exceptional claims like song, but using unreliable source for very important assertions like extensively used and pictured Iron Cross assertion just because someone on RSN said that no falsification of history appear in its pages.

This section contains discussion about the notable song on Đurišić. If you want to discuss using ureliable sources in this article please use appropriate section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

you are the one conflating one discussion with another. I've asked for a WP:RS for the 'notable' song. Haven't seen one yet though. Until I do I plan to ignore this string. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. You wrote "Your characterisation of my detailing the footnoting in Cohen is just bizarre." in the comment within this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Antidiskriminator's moved discussion of his personal issues with this article

After more thorough review and discussions both on this talkpage and RSN board I think that this article does not meet A-class criteria. Reasons:

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

I think that this article does not meet A-Class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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.--— ZjarriRrethues —  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".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 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 WP:HEAR, and discloses a very particular POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 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. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not comprehensive and well-researched

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:

1. Declaration of Independence of Montenegro of 12 July 1941. 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).
2. Change of policy of British government toward Chetniks and partisans 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" Slobodan Jovanović ("one of Mihailovic's staunchest supporters") was forced to resign.
3. Plan for establishment of the union of Serbia and Montenegro 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.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page 134.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

link to the page number 134 --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ah, Ramet. Why didn't you say, I assumed Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I did say " this plan which is summarized in separate chapter of Ramet's work as "The Neubacher Plan""--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And where does Tomasevich explain this plan? Peacemaker67 (talk) 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 source in the article. You probably overlooked it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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:

• Neglected major fact number 4: (Based on Jozo Tomasevich in "Contemporary Yugoslavia", page 94 or work of Jozo Tomasevich "Yugoslavia during the Second World War", 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."

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.

— Jozo Tomasevich

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 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. This 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.. -- Director (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They were captured too. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Per my response to the same discussion on Case Black, why don't you draft a couple of sentences and discuss them here? Peacemaker67 (talk) 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 Template:Coverage or Template:Incomplete? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 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). -- Director (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Director. Either tag would be completely inappropriate. It would be WP:UNDUE 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 WP:STICK. Your behaviour on this talk page is disruptive and tendentious. Peacemaker67 (talk) 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.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 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.. -- Director (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The man was captured, disarmed and imprisoned because of the plans for Western Allied landing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? -- Director (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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." Peacemaker67 (talk) 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. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Fact picking" is "often the main tool of a coatrack article". 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 "annulled the decision of the Montenegrin National Assembly of November 26, 1918, unifying Montenegro with Serbia". 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 but most strongly nationalist, joined in." Without information about this event the context of uprising and involvement of nationalists (including Đurišić) would not be complete.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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 WP:SYNTH. Your constant unsourced POV pushing on this talkpage is disruptive and tendentious. Please stop it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:38, 16 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)

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?

--Juraj Budak (talk) 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. Peacemaker67 (talk) 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?--Juraj Budak (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

An amazon review? Brb making a 5 star review. The "CCCC" is the cherry on top to this "Serbian POV rot" as Peacemaker put it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 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. Peacemaker67 (talk) 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. -- Director (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• Mid-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• FA-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• FA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• FA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• FA-Class Montenegro articles
• Mid-importance Montenegro articles
• FA-Class Serbia articles
• Mid-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• FA-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Mid-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English