Talk:Chetniks/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Hoare (2006). . .

. . .does not appear except in footnotes. Who is he and what is being cited? Srnec (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split of article

In 2010, it was suggested that this article be WP:SPLIT into two articles, a main article and a one for WWII and one for the rest (with a summary section for WWII). However, the suggestion was not progressed. I think it is time to re-visit the idea. WP:SPLIT says that if either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, then a split can be considered. Since 2010 this article has grown significantly in size and is now 57K in readable prose, well over the minimum for a WP:SIZESPLIT. The WWII section is too large for the article as a whole and is likely to be further expanded. I propose splitting this article into two articles. The first article would be titled Chetniks (and would consist of the contents of the current article with a summary WWII section replacing the existing WWII section) and a second (new) article titled Chetniks of World War II which will consist of the contents of the existing WWII section. I consider such a split would benefit the coverage of both the Chetnik movement throughout history and the Chetniks of WWII. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: The issue here is not the size of the article, but the size of the Axis collaboration section which is a third of the main body of the article. Per Wikipedia:Splitting: "When a section is too long, use {{Split section}}". This section should be summarized and existing extended version about this notable topic should be presented and further expanded within a separate article (i.e. "Axis collaboration of the Chetniks"). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that such an article would be a WP:POVSPLIT and contrary to WP guidelines. The article is 57K, well over the minimum size for a split to be considered (50K). The section in question is not the "Axis collaboration" section, the removal of which would create a POVSPLIT, it is the "WWII" section, which is a discrete part of the history of the Chetnik movement. It happens that the reliable sources say that the Chetniks did quite a bit of collaborating in WWII, so that is naturally the strong theme of that section. I would hope to make the new article more chronologically-focused than the current WWII section, which should provide a greater opportunity to properly examine how that situation developed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You used POV word in your comment and its edit summary. Please be so kind to follow the guideline you presented here and "since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
  • The article size issue is not the main problem here but only the consequence of the real issue: the size of the Axis collaboration section (which is a third of the main body of the article). My proposal is an attempt to resolve the real issue (size of the section), not its consequences (size of the article). Numerous editors already clearly expressed their concerns about undue weight given to Axis collaboration topics. This issue remained unresolved because their opinion was ignored.
  • It looks to me that what you proposed is not split of the article but its transformation into a broad-concept article. It is not a bad idea and I am not opposed to it. The point is that transforming this article into broad-concept article would not resolve its main issue (size of the section). It would only make it less noticeable because it would resolve one of its consequences (size of the article).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per your arguments. I would suggest "Chetniks in World War II" rather than "of" since it sounds like a list. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is poking the hive... The main issue you're opening here is the issue of a neutral summary of the extensive collaboration that took place during WWII. Currently, neutrality is maintained through a detailed account. One can already see pro-Chetnik partisans (pun intended) will indeed appear to try and sideline that aspect of the movement's activities in every way possible. Another issue being opened is that of the naming of the WWII article: "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" is a pretty common name for WWII Chetniks.. I wouldn't.. -- Director (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is a summary article instead of a detailed one, then side-lining WWII would be impossible, it is the most well-known period in the history of the movement. "Chetniks" is the clear common name for DM's crowd. The other name is only mentioned by way of what they called themselves. In my view the current article tries to do everything, doesn't cover the earlier or later conflicts properly, ends up being overly focused on WWII because that is the bit most people are interested in, and fails to actually provide a proper overview of the whole movement. It has no chance of passing GAN with its present structure, and no hope at all of getting through an A class review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know.. good chance we'll see some problems with the summary. Btw, according to what you say, the proper name for the WWII article would be "Chetniks (World War II)". I can see a million issues will be cropping up. Here's one: are the Pecanac Chetniks included in the WWII article's scope? -- Director (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely Pecanac's Chetniks should be included. Why wouldn't they be? They were Chetniks in WWII. I would merge the Pecanac Chetniks article into the Chetniks in WWII article. I don't doubt there will be "problems" with the summary article, but they will be a storm in a teacup alongside the WWII one. I actually think the summary article should be Chetnik movement, and the fork should be Chetniks in World War II. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to play the advocatus diaboli, suffices to say I can imagine a coherent opposing argument - on this and a number of other issues. To be perfectly clear, if WW, Antid et al. join in 99% we may well have a lot of fun discussing these sort of things 'til summer/winter comes. I just hope I won't have occasion to post this link again. -- Director (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"we may well have a lot of fun". Making fun of other editors' position and proposed split of article are wrong way to resolve "the issue of a neutral summary of the extensive collaboration that took place during WWII". WP:DR should be followed instead.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Once again I cannot understand what you are getting at, Antid. In plain English please. I have absolutely no idea what your view is on this proposal. Could you state it for the record? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ugh.. so it begins. I was being ironic, Antidiskriminator, obviously.
@Peacemaker. I kinda support it, yet dread restarting all these issues. In order to try and get them out of the way at least to some extent, I've posted a subsection below. -- Director (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above arguments. However, I think, it will be better, the title named Chetniks to be redirected to the article Cheta. Chetnik movement is a more proper for title concerning the activity of the early Serbian chetniks. Jingiby (talk)
  • Oppose. The creation of a separate article for the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland (or Mihalović Chetniks) would be a more logical solution, and YAiF must be one of the few, if not the only, major partcipant in WWII without a separate article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hang on. You oppose the split, but you want a split? How does that work? Reading what you've written, I thought you supported a split off of the DM Chetniks, but don't think the new article should include the Pecanac Chetniks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me if I wasn´t clear. If any split is going to be made, yes, I do support the creation of a separate article for DM Chetniks. The Pećanac Chetniks should, in my view, stay where they are as they were a separate group of Chetniks. That will basically leave us with genealistic article on Chetniks and specific articles for Mihailović Chetniks and Pećanac Chetniks. Regarding the name, I guess you oppose the title of YAiF which was the official name of the army lead by Mihailović. FkpCascais (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
What I oppose is the creation of Chetniks of World War II as your proposal was. FkpCascais (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The official name isn't used by anyone. Noone on the planet refers to those people as the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" in normal conversation - nor by any abbreviation thereof. When someone says the word "Chetniks" - 9/10 they mean the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (...unless they're right-wing Croats in which case they mean "Serbs in general" :( ).
This kind of makes me think we're going about this the wrong way. Let me throw out another idea, how about a three-article structure:
With a Chetniks (disambiguation) out there as well, to allow for "This article is about this and that, see Chetniks (disambiguation) for...". The reasoning is that it makes more sense to split away the little-relevant Macedonia Chetniks than the primary meaning of the term. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
How about leaving Chetniks as the main article with subsections for all, and then creating more detailed articles on Mihailovic Chetniks, Pecanac Chetniks and Chetniks (Macedonia)? (the exact titles can be seen later). FkpCascais (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That could work as well, but I don't think we need a summary article since 90% of content related to the Chetnks refers to the DM movement - the summary would still talk 90% about DM. The case can easily be made that the DM Chetniks are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Refactored proposal (abandoned in favour of later one)

Based on the above discussion, and a few points below, I have re-factored my proposal as follows. Could editors please confirm their views on each aspect?

  • this article be split on the basis that the new article will cover only the Mihailovic Chetniks, and not those led by Pecanac. The new article to be named following a separate discussion.
  • this article be retained as a summary article, with a scope including all of the various conflicts that Chetniks (in the wider sense) have been involved in over the last couple hundred years, with a summary section covering the DM Chetniks, the wording of which will be subject to a separate discussion.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Scope & title

Hope nobody minds my posting a subsection here about this. The main two issues as I can see are the exact title and scope of the new article, and I would like to poll user opinion and try and get a consensus on them here, rather than going through RMs and whatnot over there.

  • Scope. Is the new article to be about the Mihailovic Chetniks, or about the Mihailovic and Pecanac Chetniks. I am not for or against either option, I would just like to clear that up. Note that the PC already have their own article, and that there is a conceivable argument for the new article to be about only the MC. I'm not saying we should go one way or the other, though.
  • Title. This issue is kind of intertwined with the above.. To my knowledge, the appropriate title for the new article would be "Chetniks (World War II)", especially if its only about the Mihailovic Chetniks (but also even if its not, if I recall correctly). What do users think should be the title of the new article?

-- Director (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I already answered this question in my comment above. The new article scope should be Axis collaboration of the Chetniks. This title defines the scope of the new article which would resolve collaboration issue and its consequence with the size of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, please don´t make assumptions of bad faith against other editors when they express their opinions. After all, Antidiskriminator is correct about some issues he raised here about the exagerated weight given to the "bad stuff" (yout own words). Personaly, I would rather favour the creation of a separate article for the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. FkpCascais (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fkp. I'll ignore the bait. On what policy basis would you suggest "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" would be the common name for DM's Chetniks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes and, beside, it was an active army during WWII which would then have its own article just as most others do. FkpCascais (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
So, do I understand from that you consider "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" is the WP:COMMONNAME for DM's Chetniks, but you actually can't provide any policy-based reason for your belief? I also take it from your comments that you are in support of the splitting of the article as I have proposed? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no way its the commonname, Fkp, and you know it. Look for another excuse? -- Director (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
YAiF was the official name. I support creating (if) a separate article specifically for YAiF (which would include the "good&bad stuff, don´t warry Director). I do not support any other ideas by now, specially not putting YAiF and Pećanac Chetniks along. FkpCascais (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
So you agree with Director? That the article should be split, but only include DM's Chetniks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. FkpCascais (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you agree on the title, though? Personally I don't explicitly mind "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", but I like "Chetniks (World War II)" better, and the rules is the rules. You know perfectly well we don't use official names if they're not the most common. Are we going to have to have a dozen RMs over the name of the article? -- Director (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I would find "Mihailovic Chetniks" rather more specific than "Chetniks (World War II)". FkpCascais (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The term "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" crops up more at Google Books than "Mihailovic Chetniks". If we are to have a split, then I think creating an article under the title FkpCascais proposed makes the most sense. The scope would, for one, be absolutely clear. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Um.. yes, I could have told you that; nobody, however, is proposing we name the article "Mihailovic Chetniks". As was said, the WP:COMMONNAME for the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" is "Chetniks" (due to the original name of the movement "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army"). The terms are practically synonymous.. that meaning is very clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Director (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
But not synonymous. Per WP:NATURAL, natural disambiguation is to be preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, so the "rules" as you call them are against "Chetniks (World War II)" in this case. Srnec (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But not against Chetniks in World War II, which is natural disambiguation, and was PRODUCER's modification of my original proposal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be acceptable, but then we cannot restrict it to the Mihailovic Chetniks. One of the benefits in Fkp's proposal is that the boundaries of the sub-article are quite clear and there is less chance for unnecessary overlap. Srnec (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because it can be made clear via a dab page or even a hatnote that the Pecanac Chetniks are → over there. Chetniks (1941–1945) is another option. I personally think PRODUCER's version Chetniks in World War II is the more elegant title, there is no doubt that DM's Chetniks are the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE at that title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Misinterpretation of WP:NATURAL; that doesn't mean we have to reject parenthetical disambiguation. It is perfectly acceptable if no appropriate "natural" alternatives exist. "Chetniks of/in World War II" is vague and its not what these folks were called. Turn it any way you like, though, "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" isn't the policy-appropriate title. DM Chetniks are the "Chetniks", that's how we should go. Throwing out the three-article proposal again:
This kind of makes me think we're going about this the wrong way. Let me throw out another idea, how about a three-article structure:
With a Chetniks (disambiguation) out there as well, to allow for "This article is about this and that, see Chetniks (disambiguation) for...". The reasoning is that it makes more sense to split away the little-relevant Macedonia Chetniks than the primary meaning of the term.
-- Director (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt many Serbs would agree that the Chetnik role in the Macedonian fighting, two Balkan Wars, WWI or the interwar Chetnik organisations are "little-relevant". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
But why is such a problem of having the official Yugoslav Army in Fatherland as title? As Srnec said, the title is precise and defines perfectly the scope. Then we could leave Chetniks as a parent article where all related to all Chetnik movements can be included. That would be the most comprehensive way to have everything included in all corresponding places without need for hatnotes, rediects, etc.
My proposl basically is:
Regarding Chetniks in Macedonia and all their pre-WWII activites, we could leave them by now at Chetniks.
I can´t see why this cannot work well. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What about Chetniks (Mihailovic)? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Macedonian Chetniks are indeed little relevant, and certainly compared to WWII. The point here is that splitting away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC taking up 90% of the article is not how splits are done. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal FkpCascais.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


There is no way I myself would ever consent to a WP:POVFORK about Chetnik collaboration, whose sole purpose would be to provide an excuse for sidelining what sources agree was a massive aspect of Chetnik activities. The only purpose of that article would be to soothe the national sensibilities of our resident Serbian users. Users whose number is rapidly increasing for some mysterious reason noone could possibly explain. Users who have already been seriously sanctioned for disruptive WP:POV-PUSHING on this exact article (AGF?). Users who are now WP:BAITING obviously-good-faith contributors on this same talkpage, out of the clear blue and in the middle of an amicable discussion.

@Peacemaker. I do not mind what you are proposing, in theory, though I would more prefer we kept it down to proper organizations, kept the connection with real history. I'd prefer a "Chetniks (World War II)" article about the Mihailovic organization, keeping the Pecanac Chetniks thing. That's theory. As you can see though, such constructive debate is not likely to go forward when we have folks here looking for any "chinks in the armor" to try an rewrite the coverage of Chetnik collaboration. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Who was sanctioned for POV-pushing on this article? Can you please back up your claim Director? And btw, yes, the numbers of Serbian editors are "rapidly increasing" from 1 to 2 (50% wow, that must be really alarming for a Croatian user like you who only contributed to this Serbian related article on the subject of collaboration and the negative aspects).
Next time Director when you talk silly stuff like you just did with nationalistic remarcs included, think twice. Also, I will kindly ask you to stick to the content and leave your conspiracy theories aside as they only contribute negatively to this discussion. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yet more baiting and counter-baiting... -- Director (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration summary?

The remaining issue concerns what we take out of this article, rather than the new one itself. More than likely we will see yet another dispute regarding the best wording with which to summarize the Chetnik collaboration section here. The bare facts are NPOV by definition, it is their summary representation where the room for POV-pushing is created. If noone minds, I'd like us to agree on a wording here before going through with the split (we would have to do it anyway..). Again attempting to nip any endless debates in the bud. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, this puts the cart before the horse, and I don't think this new section is helpful at this point. We need a consensus on the scope of the new article, which as far as I can tell is still under discussion. This section is very likely to sidetrack a reasonable consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm now pretty much behind the idea that non-DM stuff should be moved out of here, rather than DM getting packed away. I see no particular need for a summary article if we move DM away. DM is "the Chetniks", so to speak. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What about having this article title for DM's org as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then Chetnik movement covering the movement? I believe there is a good argument for an article on the movement itself, it is certainly notable. After all, several sources make the point that DM's org was not really a lineal descendant of the Chetnik movement that began in 1904, although there are some overlaps like Trifunovic-Bircanin. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If that is how it is to be done, then Chetnik movements would seem to me to be better. There is almost no semantic distinction between "Chetniks" and "Chetnik movement", but by pluralising the word "movement" we shift the emphasis away from "Chetnik" towards the the variegated nature of the movement(s). I am open to either possibility. (I am even open to Antid.'s suggestion. Until I added a section on their collaboration with the Soviets, there was not a word in the article about Chetnik resistance to the Axis.) Srnec (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify what variegated movements you are referring to? There were several major Chetnik organisations in the interwar period, but I would have thought they were part of one broad politico-social movement with pretty homogenous goals, rather than separate movements? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I mean what you mean: there were several major Chetnik organisations that were part of one broad movement. I'm not sure about the homogeneity of the goals of these organisations; I would have said the goals changed a lot as the situtation changed. After all, why have the same goals in occupied Bosnia in 1944 as you had in Serbia in 1904? To clarify, I think we can pluralise "movement"—though there was one broad movement—because the different organisations, changing short-term goals and ebb and flow in the popularity of the broad movement means that it was in effect composed of several different movements. For example, is there one Feminist movement or several? One Civil rights movement or several? If consensus is against "movements", I'm afraid I'd have to oppose this latest propsal since, as I said, "Chetniks" and "Chetnik movement" are too close to synonymous for me. Srnec (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm relatively sanguine about movement/movements, and I don't intend to die in a ditch over it. So you'd support shifting the non-Mihailovic stuff to Chetnik movements and leave the Mihailovic stuff here as Chetniks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, as far as actual military organizations are concerned: there's DM Chetniks, there's Pecanac Chetniks, and there are the Chetnik bands that operated in Macedonia in the 1900s and 1910s. The civilian organizations of the Interbellum are barely-noteworthy and can easily be presented as the "Background" to DM's Chetniks. The only truly notable "Chetniks" are the DM Chetniks, they are the "Chetniks proper" and have become virtually synonymous with the term: a classic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

I agree with the notion that DM Chetniks could use their own article. Here are the two problems, though: #1 I do not think we need a separate summary article for the Chetniks in such a scenario (a Chetniks (disambiguation) would do at most); #2 the Pecanac Chetniks are barely covered here (essentially due to the synonymy of the "Chetniks" with "DM Chetniks"); they have their own article. I hold the only Chetniks that need splitting away in order for us to have our DM Chetniks artice - are the Chetniks in Macedonia (or Chetniks (Macedonia), whichever title we choose). All this would also simplify things immensely in terms of avoiding unnecessary summation. -- Director (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read what I've written, I've stepped back from a summary article, I'm saying the new article should cover the Chetnik movements, from Macedonia through the Balkan Wars, WWI and the inter-war period. A Chetniks in Macedonia article would not cover the full story of the Chetnik movement from its inception in 1904 to 1941, and I have no idea why you appear to be insisting the Chetnik involvement in the Balkan Wars, WWI and the interwar Chetnik organisations don't rate an article. The interwar organisations were significant and at least one had a huge membership and some political influence. Punisa Racic was head of the Union of Serbian Chetniks when he shot the Radic's, Pecanac grew the Chetnik Association to 500,000 members. There would obviously be some cross-references between the two articles where appropriate, eg Trifunovic-Bircanin etc, but essentially this article becomes about WWII DM Chetniks, and all other Chetniks go in the new article (which would not be a summary article). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting we have an article for the all the 1904-1941 "Chetnik movements"? My objection to that is that the Chetniks in Macedonia (that operated during the Balkan Wars & WWI) have little in common with the civilian organizations in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Imo the civilian organizations should be included either as the final section of the "Chetniks (Macedonia)" article, or (which I would prefer), as the "Background" section of the DM Chetniks article (i.e. this article, the one entitled simply "Chetniks"). They can also be included in the Pecanac Chetniks "Background" section.
To me it makes far more sense to create an article dedicated to the Chetnik guerrillas in Macedonia, rather than to compromise the structure of that article merely to shoehorn-in the civilian associations, which are a completely different thing (less relevant as well).
The problem of an appropriate title is essentially caused by the motley concept. "Chetnik movements" is pretty much equivalent to "Chetniks" and can only really be the title of a summary article (hence my misapprehension). Indeed, one would be hard pressed to come up with an appropriate name denoting all Chetniks besides those of WWII. All I can think of is "Chetniks (1904-1941)" or something like that, with a date. I'm against it though, as I believe it would be an unnecessary artificial grouping. -- Director (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I will drop this and I'll work with the pretty poorly defined and disjointed article we have. It appears that whatever anyone other than you comes up with, you have an objection to it because something else makes more "sense" to you. You can't help yourself and immediately bait the bear as soon as it appears, and this works as a spoiler by souring discussions before there is any chance to achieve consensus. I fundamentally disagree with your characterisation of the Macedonian, Balkan Wars, WWI and interwar Chetniks, what you think is "relevant" etc. It is apparent you are not interested in other editors opinions and that you are unwilling to consider anything other than your own ideas. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You, sir, are rather rude for a sock of mine :). Yes, that's called "discussion": we each say what "makes sense" to us. If you've gotten the impression I'm stonewalling what should have been an "easy" split, to that I say I've merely brought forward now the problems we'd inevitably have to go through later. And quite likely with more grief: this would not be the first occurrence where "reforms" such as these later caused successive RMs and endless disputes (not to mention AE reports) - because they were fundamentally unstable in concept.
Its not about what I think is "relevant", I have no idea why you're hung up on that - its about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Have a look at this; I've gotten as far as page 9 without finding a single reference to any non-WWII Chetniks, guerrillas or civilian. Possibly some sources mention them, but I imagine that would inevitably be as an intro to the coverage of WWII Chetniks. I stand by what I said: lumping together Interbellum civilian organizations with guerrillas in Macedonia into an "Anything Chetnik Before World War II" article makes little sense to me. I apologize. -- Director (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I never expect anything to be "easy" around here. Witness Antid's immediate attempt to push a POVSPLIT above. I am not talking about PRIMARYTOPIC. Blind Freddy (fictional character that cannot see) can see DM's Chetniks are the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Chetniks". It is not only self-evident but also supported by Google Books searches. However, that search is an extremely blunt instrument, especially when a book, such as Ramet's 3Ys mentions both in its pages. It is your stonewalling about the "relevance" of any other Chetniks other than DM's that is frustrating beyond words. There were Chetniks from 1904. They were important in the Macedonian struggle (witness Trotsky's observations), then in the Balkan Wars. They also played a role in WWI and the Chetnik orgs played important roles between the wars. Just because these issues are under-represented on WP does not mean they lack "relevance" or are not notable. The non-DM "Chetniks" are far more homogenous than the current article is, because the biggest anomaly in it is the DM Chetniks, who do not form part of the continuum (a fact that is well-sourced). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have family down your way and am relatively acquainted with Aussie idioms... I don't see how my statements of opinion regarding the relevance of non-WWII Chetniks (which were manifestly not based on WP representation) matter at all if we agree on the issue of primary topic? Can you present whatever caused you to believe the Interbellum Chetnik political organizations should be listed together with the early-20th century guerrillas? -- Director (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, we agree DM's Chetniks are the primary topic for this title. The issue is what (if anything) goes in another article (unnamed), assuming we leave Pecanac's Chetniks where they are. Ramet (3Y's) talks about the Chetnik movement from 1903 as a "nationalist-chauvinist organisation", a description that continues throughout its existence up to 1941. She talk about their initial activities in Macedonia, and goes on to immediately say it "continued to function throughout the interwar years", mentions the split of the movement between the Union of Serbian Chetniks and the Petar Mrkonjic group, talks about their negative attitude to the opposition parties, their relationships with ORJUNA and SRNAO etc. The Chetnik movement was used to terrorise pro-Bulgarians in Macedonia and pro-Albanians in Kosovo after WWI, opposition parties during elections in various parts of Yugoslavia in the interwar period etc. And that is just what is in one book by Ramet. I am finding it very difficult to understand why you do not see them as a "nationalist-chauvinist organisation' that continued to essentially push the same aims (Serbian nationalism, monarchism and political hegemony) from the moment they were created by the Serbian military in 1903. Pecanac himself is a great example of the continuity of the Chetnik movement from its creation until WWII. He fought in Macedonia, the Balkan Wars and WWI as a Chetnik, was given a free rein in Kosovo after WWI, and led a branch of the Chetnik movement between the wars. The government even asked him to form Chetnik bands in southern Serbia immediately before the war. Ramet, pages 47-48, 59, 65 & 89. Tomasevich 1975, pages 118-120, and Milazzo, pages 18-19 are all relevant to this continuity. If they saw it as a disconnected series of organisations, surely one of them would have said so. Instead they all treat them as one continuum. Instead, Tomasevich explicitly states that DM's Chetniks were not part of this continuum. I have absolutely no idea why we would not just follow the sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I see (reading up on the issue). The problem is the title. We can't very well call it "Chetniks proper"? "Chetnik movements" includes DM Chetniks... -- Director (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Granted it isn't easy, but PRIMARYTOPIC and disambiguation are not hard and fast with no wriggle room for difficult titles. We may need to consider redirecting "Chetniks" to this article and call it "Chetniks in World War II", and use a "for other uses" hatnote on this article directing people to the new article "Chetnik movement". All that would require is a consensus here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Disagree there. These are different topics: we've apparently determined the best title for the article covering DM Chetniks, no sense messing that up for the sake of the other article not having a decent title. The "Chetniks" article ought to be about DM Chetniks, with a hatnote pointing the reader to the others. Perhaps "Chetnik movements (1904-1941)"? -- Director (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I can live with it, maybe as (1904–1940). Shouldn't be any confusion or potential for overlap then. I think any post-war Chetnik-related stuff should stay in this article given the strong connection to DM. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Resistance template

I agree with Fkp. The template says they resisted "marginally". Which is sourced. What's the big deal? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case it would be correct to mark collaboration as marginal since it is also sourced that their cooperation with Italians or Germans was basically aimed to struggle against communists.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Your "evaluations" do not factor into this. -- Director (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not even close, Antid. Try reading the Ramet quote that is cited in the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
"Marginal"? More like "extensive", "systematic", "widespread", "progressive"... -- Director (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

proposed change to referencing

I propose changing the citation style in this article to simplified footnoting ie {{sfn|Author|Year|p=XX}} It will simplify combination of multiple uses of the same page in the Notes section and reduces the wikitext of the article considerably, making it easier to navigate in edit mode. Any objections? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No objections. It´s a good idea. FkpCascais (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll just wait until we know what is going on with the proposed split and do it then (to this one or both). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Revised split proposal - requests for views

To clear up any ambiguities and make clear what (if any) consensus we have for a proposed split, I would like to set aside my earlier proposals and instead propose:

  • that this article remain at its current title and its scope be limited to the Mihailovic Chetniks during World War II
  • that all other material be split from this article (including the Chetnik involvement from the time of the Macedonian struggle until 1940) and this material be used as the basis for an article entitled Chetnik movements (1904-1940).

If interested editors could note their support for/opposition to the above course of action in this thread that would be appreciated. In the interests of brevity and clarity, please try to address your comments to this proposal rather than those of your own making unless they are fairly minor tweaks of this one. If you have an entirely different proposal please start a new thread. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • @Peacemaker67: Your split proposal failed. Starting another thread can result with huge walls of text which can easily drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @Ad: your imperious assertion that the split proposal has already failed is not supported by the above discussions. I have asked editors to state whether they support or not, not to generate walls of text. My reading of the above is that myself, Director, PRODUCER and possibly also Srnec support a proposal that looks similar to this one. I take it you are opposed (on what policy basis I don't know) and I am unclear about Fkp's position on this proposal, as he has expressed support for aspects of it. Anybody else, I'm unsure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Antid.. you're not helping with these random comments. How about short break? -- Director (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I see, Srnec, Antidiskriminator and myself support keeping the current article Chetniks with a content regarding all Chetnik movements and periods (meaning also that we oppose that the scope of Chetniks to be limited only to WWII), and eventually creating separate article about the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hang on. I can't keep up with you. Didn't you say this in response to my question above?

"So you agree with Director? That the article should be split, but only include DM's Chetniks? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Yes. FkpCascais (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)" Have you moved from that view? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought Direktor wanted to split and create a new article that would include only DM Chetniks. However, I was allways clear, and I even mentioned at least twice what I thought the ideal solution would be. I will repeat: having Chetniks including everything about all Chetnik movements in all periods, and then having possibly Yugoslav Army in Fatherland (or Mihailovic Chetniks, we´ll see the name) where the Mihailovic Chetniks would be expanded, and leaving Pećanac Chetniks as they are now. That would be 3 articles on Chetniks for now, one general about them, and two specific, and that was the idea Srnec and Antidiskriminator, as far as I understood, support as well. FkpCascais (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for clarifying. I am not clear that is Srnec's position, but I think we can assume that Antid and you are on the same page on this one. Once Srnec confirms his view I think we will know whether any further discussion of this idea is justified. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, each editor should express its own view on the matter and say the solution they find most appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes FkpCascais, that is exactly what I support. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer Chetniks be a broad-concept article. My earlier comment about Chetnik movements was about my preference if consensus were that the Mihailovic Chetniks should have the main title. It seems to me there is no consensus at all about splitting this article. (Although a plurality of involved editors—you, Fkp and I—are basically on the same page, just disagreeing on the best title.) It is probably best to just continue adding information to the sparser sections and then boldly split off information as you see fit. If the article is simply too large, then it is Antidiskriminator's suggestion which makes the most sense. The article is most dense and well-covered when it comes to Chetnik collaboration. It said nothing at all about their resistance activities until I added a section on their Soviet collaboration. If you want, write some more about Chetnik resistance and then split it off! (When it comes to resisting, they may have been most active against the Bulgarians, but I'm not sure.) Srnec (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I am strongly opposed to splitting off collaboration or resistance, as I believe either would be the definition of a POVSPLIT. I also believe that the primary topic of the term "Chetniks" is the DM Chetniks so this article should always be associated with that subject, and the alternative split titles suggested by Fkp are not even close to policy-based. Given your clarification it is clear there is no consensus for my proposal and I will drop it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The collaboration subject is covered well because of its controversial nature, it "evolved" that way (if I recall back then Serbian nationalist users on this article claimed that the Chetniks did not collaborate, that it was only the Pecanac faction, etc.. the subject could not even be mentioned). Its the only section of the article that's really up to standard.. Folks like Antid, though, can see that its the good part of the article, and they don't like the fact that collaboration stands out like that. So, instead of expanding and improving other segments - they're actually looking for ways to sideline and delete the good part. And how? By creating what would indeed be the very definition of a WP:POVFORK. That's the sort of development I myself would do my utmost to oppose. -- Director (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually followed this discussion from the begining and I only commented once I had a clearer view on what to do. The thing is that I got aware about Antidiskriminator concerns regarding the unbalanced weight given to the collaboration issue, however I also recognise that creating a separate article on collaboration would be POVSPLIT. It was exactly because of it that I sugested that if any split was going to be made, that it would be making a new article on Mihailovic Chetniks (or YAiF). That seems to me neutral, and the only aspect of my proposal which Peacemaker67 says that it is not policy-based is the name of the title: Yugoslav Army in Fatherland for Mihailovic Chetniks (right Peacemaker67?), but I allways said that the title issue could be seen in a new separate discussion. Anyway, Srnec pointed out an important aspect about the lack of couverage of their resistance activities in the article, and sugested to keep on expanding the article, and that seems a fine solution by now. FkpCascais (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No FkpCascais, you weren't even signed in. You missed out on all the fun in archives #1 and #2: I have two years on you. In fact, I still kind of view you as the "newcomer" that endlessly dragged out what was a concluded issue. An issue concluded already in archive #1 [1]. Hence, I don't like you very much :).
We can't split away what is the overwhelming primarytopic. "Chetniks" = "DM Chetniks" in 99.9% of cases. An article called "Chetniks" must be about DM Chetniks. An article about DM Chetniks must be called "Chetniks".. you get my point. -- Director (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I read the archives 1 and 2 before the mediation took place, and the issue was far far from being concluded. You were opposed by numerous editors (basically, all, back then), and most of them not even Serbs, and all about the same subject, your NPOV approach, negative labeling of them, exessive focus on collaboration and disregard about their resistance activities. But lets focus on the future, lets forget about personal issues, and lets move on. FkpCascais (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

my issue with splitting off the DM Chetniks is they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this term and title should always bring readers to the DM Chetniks. They are actually a discontinuity in the history of the Chetnik movements, which is why I came to the conclusion the rest should have their own article. No matter, there is no consensus. I'm out. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you and my other sock (PRODUCER) both agree.. is there any chance one of the other fellows might change their position? -- Director (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We're your socks, of course we all agree. ;-} seriously, no. I think they are pretty much in the same page and I wouldn't be comfortable with 4/2 as a "consensus" anyway. The only way to go forward on this would be to go for a RFC and I don't see that helping. People just circle the wagons and positions tend to get further entrenched. I think it is a positive that Fkp agreed splitting off the collaboration would be a POVSPLIT, and I think it is better to let it simmer and return when people have had more time to think about it and the article is more developed. I'll start bringing in the material I talked about above and convert the citation style. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian source

G'day all, in the tagged section there is a citation to a source which Google Translate says is something like "Biliarsky, Tsocho. Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (1893 - 1919) The - Documents of central governing bodies, Volume I, Part I, IM "St. Clement Ohridski Sofia. Could someone with the language skills please put the source in English please? Per WP:NOTENG, English sources are preferred, so I will attempt to locate English language sources that cover the same material, but in the meantime some Bulgarian translation appears to be needed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Билярски, Цочо. Вътрешната македоно-одринска революционна организация (1893 - 1919 г.) - Документи на централните ръководни органи, Том I, Част I, УИ "Св. Климент, Охридски, София, 2007, стр. 316-317 - Biliarsky, Tsocho. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (1893 - 1919), Documents of the central governing bodies, Volume I, Part I, Sofia University "St. Clement Ohridski, Sofia, 2007, pp. 316-317. Jingiby (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Another couple

Can someone give me the English for

  • Документи о спољној политици Краљевине Србије 2, Додатак 1, Организација српска одбрана 1903-1905, Београд 2008, прилог бр. 1.

and

  • Илюстрация Илинден, година ХІІІ, януари 1941, книга 1 (121), с. 9.

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Resistance

Kosta Pećanac in the Toplica district.

"Anyway, Srnec pointed out an important aspect about the lack of coverage of their resistance activities in the article, and suggested to keep on expanding the article, and that seems a fine solution by now."

Based on the above discussion I propose to add some images about Chetnik resistance to this article. There is an image in the article on sr.wikipedia which is very illustrative. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How about some text about Chetnik resistance from reliably sources independent of the subject? Then there would be something to illustrate... From a quick look, that image doesn't look likely to cut it on en WP for non-free use. I don't think we should be adding images unless they have squeaky clean licensing, because as soon as the article goes to GA or higher, any that aren't up to standard will just end up being deleted. That's what happened with Pecanac, great photo of him and his dog got deleted because the licensing was inadequate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If there will be a licence issue with that image there are plenty of other images about Chetnik resistance which don't have any copyright issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Then suggest them instead of one with a potentially dodgy licence. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I will "if there will be a licence issue" with the image I proposed. You are right about the photo of Pecanac and his dog. Its really great and can be used within section abut activities of Chetnik during WWI once it is expanded.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, see the KP ACR for details of why it was deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I checked it. As far as I could see Pećanac with dog, 1916.jpg this image has the same licence tag as this image already used in the article. But, never mind, that is another article anyway. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no. The one in the KP article is this one [2] with the WP:FUR, not the one you linked. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. FUR is even more appropriate for the image I proposed then for KP's. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how you'll use FUR for that pic, but good luck. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any experience with FUR. Will you help?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If I can. The first thing is that any image needs to meet all 10 of the WP:NFCCP. Why don't you try to put together some answers to each of the criteria then if you get stuck maybe I could make some suggestions about how to address any shortfalls? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. I will do it. After reading WP:NFCCP I think it is much more acceptable for FUR then Pecanac picture you mentioned above.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded it and explained FUR somewhat. You are welcome to help if you can. Can it be used now or there is some verification procedure to be performed?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about the flag pic on this article, not the dog on the KP article. I can't see how it could be justified there, as there is already a better depiction of him in the info box. It has been removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I replied at KP article about dog picture. Here I was talking about the flag pic. Is there some additional verification procedure to pass?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
you can't have n/a for any criteria. I suggest you have a look at the FUR on the infobox pics of KP and PD for some guidance on what should be put against those criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will take your suggestion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, no prob. Once it is ready, you might want to change the suggested caption to them "standing" on it rather than "trampling" it. It doesn't look trampled to me, and they do not appear to be doing any trampling either. Let's just keep the description to what can be seen in the pic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I don't have any option for renaming this file. You are welcome to rename it if you do.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what the file is called, it is the caption when it is put in an article I am talking about. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I just thought of a really good example of a FUR for the depiction of an event rather than a portrait for identification purposes. have a look at the FUR used for this pic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Early Chetniks

There were no early Chetniks. To follow the chronology and consistency with other section titles the "Early Chetniks" subsection should be divided into "Macedonian Struggle" and "Balkan Wars".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree; these periods should be summarized. I'm currently writing a draft about the Serbian Chetnik Movement of the Macedonian Struggle.--Zoupan 14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, however, while you're at it, the referencing and sources in that section are very patchy, so I hope you have something a bit more scholarly for your draft. I have tagged the Srpsko-nasledje.rs citations for credibility, I doubt it will pass. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The author of the source published on srpskonasledje is not website but historian Simo Živković.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
@Zoupan, it is very good idea to create an article about Chetniks during the Macedonian struggle. I am sure all active editors of this article will be glad to help if necessary. Once you create that article please consider moving the summarized text into the section about Macedonian Struggle. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I could agree if we include the Interbellum Chetniks there as well - morphing this article to an article about DM Chetniks. Also, highly doubt any site called "serbianheritage.rs" can be considered anything like a source. (".rs" btw being the domain of the Republic of Srpska) -- Director (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Republic of Serbia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Creating a content fork about the Chetniks in the Macedonian Struggle is a poorly disguised attempt to turn this into a summary article by stealth yet still allow editors to whinge about the predominance of collaboration. If there is a case for splitting this article it is to split off the other material and leave DM's Chetniks here. Any attempt to circumvent the lack of consensus for a split by this method will result in a request for community scrutiny. Any new content on Chetniks of any stripe should go in this article unless there is consensus for a split. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "a poorly disguised attempt to turn this into a summary article"? This article already is a summary article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place" - that is what a summary article is. What are the current detailed articles that have been spun off? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • When you failed to gain consensus to split this article this is what you proposed (diff): "that this article remain at its current title and its scope be limited to the Mihailovic Chetniks during World War II..."
  • You can not use the lack of consensus for your above split proposal as an excuse to forbid other editors to create separate articles for some major subtopic.
  • Don't "warn" people you'll "request for community scrutiny". That's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people you'll "request for community scrutiny". That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ad, I don't have to re-set to AGF every new day for interactions with you. No admin is going to look at the Pavle Djurisic talk page and sternly tell me I should assume you are acting in good faith every time I come across you. The POVSPLIT idea you jumped in with as soon as I mentioned a split above is a classic example of what is a consistent pattern of behaviour. Can you answer my question about what the detailed articles are that this article summarises, per your contention that this is already a summary article? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Are broad concept and summary article the same thing? If yes then this article is obviously already that kind of article because it deals with all major facts and major points of view on a the subject, although detailed articles do not yet exist. If not, then I apologize for being wrong.
  • Even if I was wrong to equalize summary and broad concept article that does not affect my above remarks about your threat to Zoupan and your attempt to use lack of consensus for your split proposal as an excuse to forbid other editors to create separate articles for some major subtopic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. An understanding of what a summary article is is central to this issue. I am in no position to forbid anything. But there must equally be consensus for any such split off of Chetniks-related content just as there needed to be for my proposal. You don't see the double-standard? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I think that Zoupan was very clear that his intention is not to split off Chetnik-related content from this article but to create a separate article about its major subtopic, based on the draft he is currently writing. That is constructive effort since the subtopic in question is currently covered only with two small paragraphs.
  • I agree with you that it is very important to understand what is summary article. Will you please reply to my question if broad concept and summary article the same thing?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They are not. A broad concept article is essentially a more complex form of disambiguation. For example, Football is a broad concept article (there are lots of different types of football). A summary style article is one where sections are split off into detailed articles, leaving a summary section in its place with a {{main|Fooian widget}} template at the top of the section. At present, this is a detailed article that doesn't even have a summary section for the Pecanac Chetniks article. So in no way could this article be described as either a broad concept article or a summary style article in its current form. Zoupan's draft should just be inserted in this article in the chronologically appropriate place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. The topic of this article "can be divided into subtopics". If subtopic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it meets WP:NOTABILITY guideline for a stand-alone article. I don't think you can expect other editors not to create any article about such subtopic just because your proposal "that this article remain at its current title and its scope be limited to the Mihailovic Chetniks during World War II..." was rejected. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position here and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
As does my main account. -- Director (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

More sources of interest

I do not have access to Jasper Rootham's Miss Fire (Chatto and Wimdus, 1946), but it would seem to be a useful book judging by a Fitzroy MacLean review, "Truth About Mihailovich", in New Statesman and Nation of that year.

Another source I don't have access to is Lucien Karchmar's 1973 Stanford dissertation: "Draza Mihailovic and the Rise of the Chetnik Movement, 1941–42", in 2 volumes!

Only of minor importance for our purposes, but still interesting is R. K. Kindersley, "The Failure of the Chetniks", Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes 18:4 (1976), 460–63. It is a mostly laudatory review of Milazzo and Tomasevich. Kindersley sees the forest and not only the trees. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Srnec. The Rootham book is probably too old, it could be argued that it isn't independent of the subject (as Rootham served with the SOE mission to DM and made loud noises when his mission was withdrawn). He may also have had some bias, and the book was essentially a memoir. Chatto and Windus (now part of Random House) was not exactly an academic press in 1946, more literary fiction, biography, memoirs etc. Still a pretty good house though. I don't think Rootham would be a particularly useful addition, as I believe it has some problems to overcome in terms of age, lack of independence from the subject, the fact it is a memoir, and possible bias. I haven't read it, the nearest library that holds the book is halfway across Australia from me. Karchmar's Ph.D. thesis was published in 1987 by Garland, and is already listed in the References, I only have access at the uni library. I will try to have another look next time I'm in there. There is no shortage of reviews praising Milazzo and Tomasevich Volume 1, they are undisputed core texts on the Chetniks, probably along with Roberts (they are cited in pretty much every single other book I have on the subject of Yugoslavia in WWII and many others I've looked at online). I have copies of all three and intend to continue adding material from them to this article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of the article in "serbianheritage.rs" aka "http://www.srpsko-nasledje.rs/"

I consider we need to establish if the article from this website is a reliable published source independent of the subject. Here is what I can tell with my limited language skills (I am happy to be contradicted if I am wrong):

  • the website it is from is apparently called "Serbian Heritage, Historical Volumes", and was first published in January 1998, and last published in June 1999 with a total of 18 issues
  • it has an English web version which is marked as "under construction", and no English versions of the journal are available.
  • is carried on the .rs (Republic of Serbia) country domain
  • it names an editorial board which included historians such as Milorad Ekmečić, Miloš Blagojević, Kosta Čavoški and Pero Simić among others

So in summary, per WP:RS:

  • the article itself has no references or footnoting whatsoever.
  • the article appears to have been written by Simo Zivkovic, who Ad says is a historian.
  • the publisher of the work appears to be the editorial board of the now-defunct journal.

I don't believe the article meets the requirements of WP:RS and propose removing it from the article.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't mind replacing the article written by Simo Zivkovic with better source. Not because I think it is unreliable but because this article deserves better sources. It is unclear what you exactly dispute. Your question is related to the certain article written by Simo Zivkovic. At the same time the subtitle you created refers to the publisher's website as well as your rationale which deals with domain of the publisher's website. Two assertions which are referenced with text published in this journal are well known and not likely to be disputed so I don't see a particular reason to dispute the source's reliability. Though, like I said, better source is preferred.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I am just listing facts based on what I can tell from looking at the website (I've clarified I am talking about the article). Maybe my language skills are not up to par, and I have missed something about the website? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The politeness around here.. its nauseating :). Lets scrap the pussyfooting. Not a single solitary word from that silly site can possibly be used as support for anything on this project. Provide properly published, verifiable, scholarly sources in accordance with policy(!), or don't bother at all. On a personal note: try and keep your distance from such places, Antid. They do you no good.. and you can altogether forget that anything you read there will ever be acceptable on enWiki. Even if you were to show that guy has a diploma in history, the publicist itself is not a mainstream, reliable source. You could have a paper by Graeme Clark there, but if its published on ChetniksForever.au - its not reliable. And even if you had him in the Politika - it would still be a locally-published source.
So you see there are all these levels of "unacceptability"...
Keep to the standard of sourcing currently present in the article. -- Director (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Get a bucket, Director. :-) Ad, the source is unreliable because it doesn't clear WP:RS at the first hurdle as I have explained. ie the web article itself lacks citations or referencing, which is enough to remove it regardless of whether it is only used for "facts" like the names of Chetnik leaders in Macedonia. The re-named "Macedonia and Balkan Wars" section of the article is the worst section of the article at present. If Zoupan has a draft and it uses reliable sources, it should be added in this article which really needs help in this section. If it was to be created as a stand-alone article, I would nominate it for merging into this one for that reason. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR: I don't understand why you addressed your comment to me. It is Peacemaker67 who used "localy-published source" (Glas Javnosti) which is published by the same publisher who published Serbian Heritage magazine and its website "serbianheritage.rs" (NIP Glas ad. Glas Javnosti doo). Not only in this article but in many other articles which already have GA or even FA status (i.e. Kosta Pećanac.... ). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Simply because the article is GA/FA, it doesn't mean its sources are automatically top-notch. I myself am against using anything published 'round these parts. But, as I said, there are all these "levels" here. Its being a Balkans publication is the least of the problems. We really need to keep to our current standards of sourcing. -- Director (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hang on, are you saying it is published by Glas Javnosti? Where does it say that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
No. I said that you Peacemaker67 "used "localy-published source" (Glas Javnosti) which is published by the same publisher who published Serbian Heritage magazine and its website "serbianheritage.rs"" It says here: (NIP Glas at Glas Javnosti website NIP Glas at Serbian Heritage website). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
How am I supposed to know that NIP Glas means Glas Javnosti? Sheesh. And it was Director, not me. Please try to keep Director's socks separate from his main account... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd be surprised if there's a single publication from Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia that's objective on the Chetniks. Serbia in general is currently in the "antithesis" phase to the communist "thesis". After WWIII the 16-or-so survivors will likely arrive at a synthesis amid the Avala Crater. Until such a point, we ought to stick to people who don't really give a flying... -- Director (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

placing your personal preference for non-local sources to one side, this particular source doesn't appear to cut it essentially because the article is not referenced. Old mate may well be a historian as Ad says, but what is his speciality? If he is a specialist on the Chetniks in the Balkan Wars and he is a professor at a university (for example) this webpage may well considered reliable. I consider Hoare's blog reliable (when he writes about the former Yugoslavia) because he is a Balkan specialist historian. We really need to know who this joker is and what his qualifications are etc. In the absence of that information I think this source has to go regardless of the fact that it was published by the same people who publish Glas Javnosti and had a number of notable academics on its editorial board. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced part of the info with Ramet. There really shouldn't be this much unnecessary discussion when there are numerous sources available. That was not the case for Pecanac and if I had access to another source I'd remove GJ from the article in a heartbeat. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
If there are no other sources which can support the significant portion of the article referenced with "NIP Glas" publication then Kosta Pećanac article has much bigger problem than DIREKTOR's opinion about "localy published sources" not being reliable. But you are right. This is not the right place for this discussion. There is a clear consensus here that the article in question should be replaced with better source. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved templates, ticks and other things

Ad. Your continued and confected politeness ("would you please be so kind...) is not appropriate or appreciated, get to the point, read the references or even (heaven forbid!) edit the article yourself if you think there is something in it that is wrong or misleading. I don't own this article and I don't work for you. I have no intention of going through the same bunch of old cobblers here as we had to put up with at the Djurisic talk page. Boldly edit the article or prepare to be ignored (by me at least). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you see what I meant by "poking the hive". Well.. here it is. -- Director (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Peacemaker67,
  • "confected politeness": I asked a good faith question about "Chetniks who collaborated with Germans in May 1941" three times (1, 2 and 3) because I needed that information to edit the article and resolve this issue. Using the term "would you please be so kind..." when I asked the same question for the third time was simply my sincere effort to get the reply. Please respect WP:AGF and don't refer to my question as "confected politeness".
  • "prepare to be ignored" You are not obliged to cooperate with other editors. Though, some other editors could see your "failure to cooperate with such simple requests ... as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors".
The topic of this article is not the main subject of my interest so I will significantly reduce my engagement here so you will probably not have an opportunity to continue to ignore me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Goodo. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me whenever you or anyone else think I can help with this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Chetnik liberated areas map

Territory liberated by Chetniks by the July 1942.

I removed the "Chetnik liberated areas" map because it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. It is ostensibly based on a Time magazine article which was essentially Chetnik/Yugoslav government-in-exile propaganda and is unsupported by the facts as described in scholarly sources published after the war. The description of these areas as "liberated" is extremely dubious, as the Italians, Germans and Bulgarians "shared" these areas with any Chetniks that might have been operating there, so the Chetniks didn't even have exclusive "control" of these areas. Who exactly these territories had been "liberated" from is highly questionable. The Partisans? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The map is sourced, and if you claim anything is wrong with it, you propose the map for deletion, otherwise it is a very usefull map for this and other articles. You claiming that Times magazine was Chetnik/Yugoslav propaganda is actually an exceptional claim... The map should be restored in the article, and actually shows a pretty minor area having in mind that Chetniks were active in much more areas than those, so seems nothing wrong with the map. FkpCascais (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, you know very well what "liberated" means, and you keep on your POV about deniying Chetnik resiatnce activities... FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What Chetnik resistance activities? The map is nonsense. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, right... -_- FkpCascais (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Peacemaker67 that the "Chetnik liberated areas" caption is wrong. "Liberated" and "Island of freedom" are biased terms.
  • With precise appropriate caption this map is very useful. It shows the area where forces under direct Mihailovic's control operated at the beginning of 1942. Not under their exclusive control, of course. If the caption of the map is changed to reflect what sources actually indicate I think it is very useful and should be used in the article. I.e. "Theater of operation of Chetnik forces commanded by Mihailović at the beginning of 1942" or something similar. No sources I saw until now contradict this assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mass desertions"

I was watching my watchlist and I just saw this. Just to be clear, I absolutely agree with the restoring of blatant removal of sourced content. However, one thing caught my eye, the insistance on how Germans used the Chetniks and not the Ustaše troops because of "mass desertions of Croat (meaning Ustaše) soldiers to the Partisans"... Mass desertions? Mass? Do we know the exact (or close) numer of Ustaše soldiers that deserted to the Partisans? Was it really "en mass"? And "pro-Partisan disposition of Croatian rank-and-file"? Is this sourced by Tomašević or Ramet? FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@"mass desertions of Croat (meaning Ustaše) soldiers...". You don't appear to realize what the term "Ustase" means. The Ustase were a political party, which had its military wing, the Ustase Militia. These "Croat soldiers" are "Ustase", others are not. The vast majority of "Croat soldiers" in the NDH military were the Home Guard, a drafted conscript army. These were by-and-large forcefully conscripted men, and can't really be called "Ustase" under any definition. One of the basic facts about the Home Guard were the mass desertions, defections (first rare then drastically increasing as the war went on), and arms funneling to the Partisans... and also its lack of supplies, even food, a lack of any heavy equipment, poor leadership by old WWI officers, an embarrassingly poor performance as a military force.. etc. A terrible outfit through-and-through. -- Director (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Direktor. Yes, I am aware about the Ustaše political and military sections, and how the military was divided between the more loyal ones, and the Home Guard. The problem is that once we say that Germans prefered Chetniks over Ustaše, and next we say that Croats deserted en masse to the Partisans and had all the pro-Partisan predisposition, leaves kind of an idea that the Ustaše themselfs (what ever Ustaše are refered there) were the ones having that predisposition and deserting to the Partisans. See my problem here? Anyway, dowe have even a clue about how many of them deserted to the Partisans and when? (I guess 1943, but I´m only guessing) FkpCascais (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not challenging the fact that Partisans in Croatia became popular and Croats joined them en masse during the course of the war, I am just challenging that "many" (or en masse) of the Ustaše regime related ones did so. FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It should be made clear the reference there is to the Home Guard. -- Director (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Menu

I wonder why the article navigation menu is so gross? Any way we can get it to show subsections as well? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of Chetnik collaboration

  • The article says: "Colonel Draža Mihailović, who wanted(?) to establish resistance to the occupation, set up his headquarters in Ravna Gora and initially named his group "The Ravna Gora Movement" in order to distinguish it from the Chetniks engaged in collaboration with the Germans." - This is not clear. Who were those other Chetniks who collaborated with Germans in May 1941?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The article also says: "The pre-war Chetnik leader Pećanac soon came to an arrangement with Nedić's collaborationist regime in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia.[20] Colonel Draža Mihailović, who wanted to establish resistance to the occupation, set up his headquarters in Ravna Gora" - The chronology of this should be double checked. According to KP article, KP "came to agreements with both the Serbian puppet government and the German authorities" by late August, not before DM (wanted?) to establish resistance and set up his headquaters in Ravna Gora in May. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot more to be done in explaining the situation from May to September, the movements were not clearly split and there were many groups under no control but their own. I have quoted Roberts for clarity, and moved the sentence about KP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving the chronology issue. The first issue still remained unresolved. "Who were those other Chetniks who collaborated with Germans in May 1941?"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say that, does it? It is dealing with the name and why is was adopted. That would have been important at some time in 1941 with Pecanac, Ljotic and others quickly jumping on the Nazi bandwagon. But your underlying point is a good one. The current theme-based structure sucks the big one. The whole thing should be chronological rather than thematic, then the changes in name and (marginal) resistance and collaboration can all just be laid out in a sensible order when they happened (ie that follows the progress of WWII). Perhaps the discussions of the name should be put in a separate section? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not discussion about the name. This is discussion about the chronology of Chetnik collaboration. An uninitiated reader would be mislead with existing wording to believe that in May 1941 "Pećanac Chetniks and others calling themselves Chetniks ... engaged in collaboration with the Germans" so DM initially named his group "The Ravna Gora Movement" in order to distinguish it from them. Will you please be so kind to explain "Who were those other Chetniks who collaborated with Germans in May 1941?" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
But the text you are referring to is about the name. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The text does imply that in May 1941 ("initially"), the group was distinguished from Chetniks collaborating with the Germans. If there were no Chetniks collaborating in May 1941, then it should be reworded. I also agree with Peacemaker's proposed restructuring along purely chronological lines. As an aside, I'd like to see a full table of contents come back, but maybe we could restructure it first. Srnec (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that section is supposed to be about formation and ideology (not collaboration), but the fact that Pecanac is not properly introduced seems to be part of the problem here. DM was pretty much unknown to the wider population in the early summer of 1941, at which time the term "Chetnik" referred only to Pecanac's Chetniks. Few knew the Dražinovci existed, and they were not widely known as "Chetniks" then. After all, no-one knew who DM was in May 1941, but Pecanac was a famous voivode who had fought in an insurgency and three wars, was highly decorated and influential with the interwar Serbian establishment. This is explained quite well in Tomasevich 1975, pp. 126-127. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

==

This article fails to mention or give a feeling of the level of importance it was to rid of the Partizans, throughout their occupation they committed more atrocities than all put together not to mention their barbaric way in battle. Whoever put this together clearly is a Yugonostalgic Titoist marxist, therefore the article void on the basis of being biased and fantasias. The primary goal of the Chetniks from day one was to rid of the Partizans, they didn't join the National Socialists for that, in the black and white sense this piece of junk is trying to pull off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.24.223 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chetniks/Archive_8&oldid=1079214429"