Talk:Chetniks/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Ljubica Štefan allegedly a controversial author

I put information of the Croatian historian from the book ie RS to article. If this historian is controversial author then you must presented reliable sources which talks about it. There is a possibility of verification this source on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Deleting data because someone doesn't like it is not according to wikipedia rules. You cannot delete something from an article with a personal view of that or some other author. In any case, RS will say whether her book is RS or not and not some editor anonymous from wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are certainly some pretty strong criticisms of her work by a number of Yugoslav specialists (largely that she is biased), but I didn't drill down into academic reviews of her work. Instead, I replaced it with similar information from a specialist book on religion in WWII, Bank and Gevers, published by Bloomsbury. Problem solved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: But it is a matter of principle and procedure. We can't Croatian historian and his book that has positive reviews (for now I found one) move from an article for alleged controversy of this historian. There was no problem here. Her book is very good and has a lot of valuable data and conclusions and should be part of wikipedia. Otherwise she transmits that information from book of Jozo Tomasevich, »Četnici u Drugom svjetskom ratu«, 1979., page 165 (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks,) so you can add and that book as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67. My issue was not with the text itself but the source. I wrote a response to Mikola22 just before you made your edit and posted on the talk page. It's not as relevant now but I'll post regardless.

The onus is on the one adding questionable or contentious material (something that's been a pattern for you) to explain why the source they are adding is worthy of inclusion and why they should be considered a RS, not the other way around. In this case, we have no reason to assume Štefan is a RS just because she is a historian. But since your edit was restored, I'll explain it.

In her books Mitovi i zatajena povijest & Istinom i činjenicama za Hrvatsku, Štefan claimed that Jasenovac was used as a concentration camp and execution site by Tito and the Communist authorities after World War II, from 1945-1948 for political prisoners.12

Translation #1: "She wrote about the victims in post-war Tito's Jasenovac camp from 1945 to 1948. In support of her claim, she investigated and cited several witnesses, along with a dozen listed bibliographic sources. She claimed that after May 1945, until 1948, Jasenovac was a communist execution site for many Croatian martyrs from the Way of the Cross. Post-communist, regime critics and journalists.."

Translation #2: "Ljubica Štefan wrote a valuable work that confirms that the Jasenovac camp worked as a communist camp for years after the end of World War II."

I am not aware of any reliable historical publications that confirms this. As this Balkan Insight article points out, this theory is unproven. It usually goes hand in hand with the theory that Jasenovac was just a "labor camp" peddled by the far-right in Croatia who seek to downplay or deny Ustashe genocide.3

John K. Roth writes that in her work From Fairy Tale to Holocaust, Štefan alleges that Serbia ran an independent state during the Second World War. It's a well established fact that Serbia during WWII was occupied by Germans under a quisling government so this is bizarre. Roth's book is unavailable for preview but terms are searchable.4

From her wiki page: Professor Jovan Byford of The Open University notes that Štefan "belongs to a group of authors whose works support the Croatian side against the Serbian side in propaganda war" that try to demonstrate that "collaborators during WWII with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia from Jews and committed much worse crimes than the Ustasha".

There's also content from her hr.wikipedia page which says that Štefan wrote that Nikola Tesla was of Croatian ethnic origin, a view unsupported by the consensus of scholars.

So given this author's bias and propensity for fringe theories, I hardly see how she can be considered a RS, especially for the text you added. --Griboski (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Mikola22, you only have to Google "Ljubica Štefan criticism" and you'll find several very pointed criticisms of her work (including some of the stuff Griboski has detailed above), including that she is highly biased and that she has stated as fact several important things that are very clearly wrong (the status of occupied Serbia and supposed independence of the Nedić regime for example). Others have described her as a propagandist. However, if you can find some laudatory academic views, then she could possibly be considered reliable but needing in-text attribution when used for controversial material (which is how we treat Cohen). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• In her books Mitovi i zatajena povijest & Istinom i činjenicama za Hrvatsku, Štefan claimed that Jasenovac was used as a concentration camp and execution site by Tito and the Communist authorities after World War II, from 1945-1948 for political prisoners Yes and? It is forbidden to write about it? The first source is a private internet portal and article of mathematics professor, Prof.Dr. Darko Zubrinic. The other source is also some internet portal in which is mentioned "komunistički logor" communist camp and not a "concentration camp".

• I am not aware of any reliable historical publications that confirms this. You have this scientific paper "Post-War Concentration Camp Jasenovac: Witness Testimonies and Newer Archival Sources" in which all historians and sources(which exist) spoke about "work" of that camp after 1945.

• John K. Roth writes that in her work From Fairy Tale to Holocaust, Štefan alleges that Serbia ran an independent state during the Second World War. It's a well established fact that Serbia during WWII was occupied by Germans under a quisling government so this is bizarre. Roth's book is unavailable for preview but terms are searchable. Yes, because of one opinion that we do not know how it writes in the original book we cannot all her books and the author himself considered as controversial. We need a lot more RS talking about it.

• From her wiki page: Professor Jovan Byford of The Open University notes that Štefan "belongs to a group of authors whose works support the Croatian side against the Serbian side in propaganda war" that try to demonstrate that "collaborators during WWII with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia from Jews and committed much worse crimes than the Ustasha". Original: "Na interpretaciju Sajmišta i njegove povijesti ranih devedesetih svakako su utjecale i polemike o odnosu Srba i Hrvata prema Židovima koje su u to vrijeme vođene na relaciji Zagreb-Beograd. S hrvatske strane, najaktivniji u ovom svojevrsnom ratu riječima bilisu autori poput Tomislava Vukovića, Ljubice Štefan, Josipa Pečarića, Ante Kneževića i američkog publicista Philipa Cohena. U svojim djelima oni su nastojali predstaviti Srbe kao stvarni “genocidni narod,” čiji su kolaboracionisti za vrijeme Drugog svjetskog rata uz blagoslov Srpske pravoslavne crkve počinili mnogo strašnije zločine od ustaške NDH i očistili Srbiju od Židova. Oni su tvrdili da je u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji postojala “zavjera šutnje,” ali da je ona prikrivala genocidni karakter srpskog nacionalizma i zataškavala njegove krvave tragove. Dakle, hrvatska strana je u ovoj polemici obilno posuđivala (i okretala) argumente svojih srpskih pandana, koji su prvi pisali o “zavjeri šutnje,” genocidnoj prirodi (hrvatskog) nacionalizma, ulozi (katoličke) crkve u genocidu počinjenom u Drugom svjetskom ratu i slično. Sa srpske strane, glavni sudionici u debati bili su Milan Bulajić,zatim autori knjige Istina o “srpskom antisemitizmu” Andrija Gams i Aleksandar Levi, i Jaša Almuli, u to vrijeme jedan od portparola kontroverznog i nacionalistički orijentiranog Društva srpsko-židovskog prijateljstva. Oni su, kao odgovor na “optužbe” iz Zagreba,uglavnom nastojali u potpunosti negirati postojanje antisemitizma u Srbiji, potencirajući pritom njegovo rašireno prisustvo u Hrvatskoj, kako u prošlosti tako i danas. Iza ove pole-mike vrlo brzo su stala ministarstva (Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja u Srbiji i Mini-starstvo vanjskih poslova u Hrvatskoj), kao i režimski mediji u obje države, što ukazuje da je debata zapravo vođena na nivou državne propagande." "The interpretation of Sajmište and its history in the early 1990s was certainly influenced by the controversies about the attitude of Serbs and Croats towards Jews at that time between Zagreb and Belgrade. On the Croatian side, the most active in this kind of war were authors like Tomislav Vuković, Ljubica Štefan, Josip Pečarić, Ante Knežević and the American publicist Philip Cohen. In their works they sought to present the Serbs as a real “genocidal people,” whose collaborators committed much more horrific crimes than the Ustasha NDH during World War II with the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church cleansed Serbia of Jews. They claimed that there was a "conspiracy of silence" in socialist Yugoslavia, but that it covered up the genocidal character of Serbian nationalism and covered up its bloody traces, so the Croatian side borrowed (and turned) the arguments of its Serbs in this controversy pandanus, who first wrote about the “conspiracy of silence,” the genocidal nature of (Croatian) nationalism, the role of the (Catholic) church in the genocide committed in World War II and similar clames. On the Serbian side, the main participants in the debate were Milan Bulajić, then the authors of the book The Truth About "Serbian Anti-Semitism" Andrija Gams and Aleksandar Levi, and Jasa Almuli, at that time one of the spokespersons of the controversial and nationalist Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society. In response to the "accusations" from Zagreb, they generally sought to completely deny the existence of anti-Semitism in Serbia, emphasizing its widespread presence in Croatia, both in the past and today. The ministries (Ministry of Culture and Information in Serbia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Croatia), as well as the regime media in both countries, quickly became behind this controversy, which indicates that the debate was actually conducted at the level of state propaganda."

• There's also content from her hr.wikipedia page which says that Štefan wrote that Nikola Tesla was of Croatian ethnic origin, a view unsupported by the consensus of scholars. She quoted his diary, which is allegedly in the museum of Nikola Tesla in the bunker. It is interesting that we have never seen this diary even though it exists. There are no formulas in it which are significant to science, only his personal informations which are, as we see, forbidden to the public. Whay? However why would her claim be an obstacle to the presentation of her books i.e. RS?

• Therefore, what we see is actually nothing, some of its views are controversial and now all her books should not be present on Wikipedia, this is not anarchy this is Wikipedia where we must respect some procedures which I listed them in the first post. Mikola22 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding it very hard to follow your very long posts. Try to be brief and concise and link to reliable sources that support your argument she is reliable. I suggest you find some academic reviews of her work that are positive, and use them to expand her article. All I can see at present is highly respected academics like Byford heavily criticising her for spreading false information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To summarize we do not have a single RS presented who view the books and papers or Ljubica Štefan as controversial. We have clame from John K. Roth but I have not read what he says(specifically in the book) nor I read statement of Ljubica Štefan from his book. I suppose that we are not going to take away her title of historian for one statement (I don't know which one). Zlatko Kudelić Croatian historian about the book of Ljubica Štefan "Srpska pravoslavna crkva i fašizam" I quote: Završavajući osvrt na knjigu Ljubice Šteifan možemo istaknuti njeno veliko značenje za hrvatsku historiografiju budući da sadržajem negira ustaljenu crno - bijelu interpretaciju događaja vezanih uz drugi svjetski rat na području bivše Jugoslavije te pokazuje neodrživost teza koje hrvatskoj strani pripisuju sano negativne karakteristike. S obzirom na aktualnost ovog djela bilo bi poželjno knjigu Ljubice Štefan objaviti i na stranim jezicima. "Concluding the review of Ljubica Šteifan's book, we can emphasize its great significance for Croatian historiography, since its content denies the established black and white interpretation of events related to the Second World War in the former Yugoslavia and shows the unsustainability of theses that attribute only negative characteristics to the Croatian side. Given the relevance of this work, it would be desirable to publish the book by Ljubica Štefan on foreign languages." Mikola22 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you are dismissing these criticisms (Roth and Byford are both RS) as "nothing" shows you don't understand or don't want to understand what constitutes a RS. They're not simply declared or always assumed by default. They're based on different factors like the person, their work and peer review and if it's published in a quality press such as an academic institution. These are some of Štefan's issues found only with minimal research. Byford also says in Sabrina P. Ramet's Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two that Štefan belongs to a group of "Croatian writers and publicists" [who have written] "a series of propagandist pieces of quasi-historical writing".5 Because there are propagandists on the other side like Bulajić, that doesn't negate her own controversies.

If someone promotes false or fringe theories that don't align with the scholarly consensus then that person is an outlier in the academic community and isn't a RS. If Jasenovac was used as a camp post-WII by Tito, then this should be covered in mainstream historiography, not used by a small group of right-wing crackpots to advance their conspiracy theories. --Griboski (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Byford also says in Sabrina P. Ramet's Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two that Štefan belongs to a group of "Croatian writers and publicists" [who have written] "a series of propagandist pieces of quasi-historical writing" This is Byford paper in Sabrina P. Ramet's book. Where are RS which dispute Ljubica Štefan books and this book? If someone in this case Ljubica Štefan has some clames confirmed by the evidence in their book I don't know why would that be controversial, i.e. I first have to see which RS talk about her books. Thus, attacking historian who is highly respected in Croatia that is controversial with two sources talking about it generally makes no sense. Therefore, there must exist scientific papers and RS who rate this book negatively. We are not in the market, this is wikipedia. This book mostly uses Yugoslav sources as well as wartime sources(41-45). And what we should do now? Mikola22 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, the other authors Byford mentions in Ramet's book as being part of that group are believed to be pseudonyms Štefan used to avoid scrutiny, which is telling. "Highly respected in Croatia" is not an argument. It also depends by who. There are agenda-driven fringe historians in Serbia who are also respected, for the wrong reasons. Her "claims" can only be confirmed through other and RS works, not her own research. Serious issues regarding her work have been provided and you've just disregarded it. I also wouldn't be surprised if she's obscure enough in the larger scholarly community and that due to some of her fringe writings, it would explain a lack of in-depth coverage/criticism in English sources (lack of importance). Again, WP:SCHOLAR, WP:FRINGE and our own WP:OR all matters. If you're convinced that Jasenovac was used as a camp by Yugoslav authorities after WWII, publish your own work and have it become a historical breakthrough. But fringe theories shouldn't be entertained and it's been explained to you many times. Anyway, based on the information we have, I'd venture to say that even attributing her in cases where other sources don't confirm her claims would be problematic. Best to stick to other sources whenever possible. --Griboski (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Based on the opinion of multiple editors grounded in RS it can be concluded that Ljubica Štefan was indeed a controversial author whose works should not be considered as reliable. Editors insisting to use her works in article building should gain consensus at RSN.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

First sentence

Interested editors should take a look at the first sentence. It is a long one, and would probably be better for one reading the article if it was shorter. Its text could be turned into two sentences, or some of it could be moved elsewhere in the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, it would better for those reading the article if editors stopped focussing on the wording of the lead, worked on the body of the article and brought it up to an acceptable standard, then rewrote the lead to reflect what is in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right, but the history has shown that such delicate Balkan articles do not receive enough input and stability to have a well-written body. It is sad because they are important and meaningful topics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevent quote pertaining to chetniks

During World War II, Mile Budak .

(June 30, 1941), Stevan Moljević (a lawyer from Banja Luka who was also an ideologue of the Chetniks), published a booklet with the title "On Our State and Its Borders". Moljević asserted:

"One must take advantage of the war conditions and at a suitable moment seize the territory marked on the map, cleanse [očistiti] it before anybody notices and with strong battalions occupy the key places (...) and the territory surrounding these cities, freed of non-Serb elements. The guilty must be promptly punished and the others deported – the Croats to (significantly amputated) Croatia, the Muslims to Turkey or perhaps Albania – while the vacated territory is settled with Serb refugees now located in Serbia."

This quote is relevant to this page in describing ulterior motives. Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.116.63 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Information that doesn’t say much

MacDonald's personal opinion, which he admits "may well be refuted in future years" is that “genocide (of Serbs or Croats) in the occupied and divided Yugoslavia during the Second World War is very difficult to prove.

I think this information is not for the introductory part of the article, this information could find its place in the Legacy section. Otherwise it is not clear whose genocide it is, there are also some crimes immediately after the war and from this information we do not what it is about. In any case, I suggest moving this information to a suitable place. Mikola22 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, MacDonald's claim that there was no genocide of Serbs (at the very least) is incredibly fringe as it does not reflect the academic consensus, and has absolutely no place in the lead, and probably not anywhere in the article. That's why I've flagged it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

David Bruce MacDonald, who accepts that the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis forces to strengthen their hand against the Partisans, but claims that it would be highly misleading to suggest that the Chetniks collaborated in order to carry out the genocide of Croats and Muslims Yes, we also have and this information, so I think there are too many one person claim in the introductory part whether or not Chetniks carry out the genocide, in any case this information is not for the introductory part(my editorial opinion). And whether it should be part of the article, we should see how much this information has additional quality sources as confirmation. If this claim has no academic consensus (I have not researched it) my support for removing this information is here. Mikola22 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Massive changes to change the topics of the article

Massive changes of the article are performed without reaching consensus first.

I object massive changes performed by Peacemaker67 which changed this article from a summary article about all Chetniks into article about WWII Chetniks. Multiple previous discussions have never resulted with clear consensus about it. Massive changes should be reverted and repeated only after reaching the consensus at talkpage first. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The earlier Chetniks were already summarised in the Background section, and I have actually expanded the information about them. The body is about the DM Chetniks, and the later ones are still there at the end. The article has been about DM’s Chetniks (as the primary topic) for ages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its easy to check arichives of this talkpage and see that for example in this discussion you failed to gain consensus for your proposal because multiple editors rejected your proposal "that this article remain at its current title and its scope be limited to the Mihailovic Chetniks during World War II..." because they wanted it to stay broad concept summary article and/or to leave Chetniks as the main article with subsections for all, and then creating more detailed articles on Mihailovic Chetniks, Pecanac Chetniks and Chetniks (Macedonia). During one of earlier discussions (link) one editor explicitly stated diff I am supportive of splitting this article into a series of child articles, with this remaining as the summary article. Another editor supported this position struggling to still have one parent article which would be this one here and where all would be concisely included Although you failed to gain consensus you performed massive changes (diffs) and changed the topics of this article from a summary article about all Chetniks into an article about WWII Chetniks (1941-45). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator. Just as you know how to write an article, someone else know how to edit an article. You have the whole talk page and expose all the quotes, informations and corrections which are wrong. I did not notice a problem in this edits. As far as I know Chetniks are best known for their activities in WWII, chapters in the article talk about the earlier period of Chetniks and later(Yugoslav Wars), but the construction must be from WWII. Most books, scientific papers, etc talk about that period. The article also mentions early actions of the Chetniks and their resistance against the occupying forces. Everything is listed as it should be. Mikola22 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You have no consensus for your recent tweaks, undo yourself and join the TP debate. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Peacemaker67's changes are remarkable and without a doubt a huge improvement. However, I also agree that the article is oversized (WP:AS) and little confusing, not to mention the lead and infobox. There should definitely be a separate article about Chetniks during World War II. (WP:SPLIT). Of course, the most important parts from that period should be left here as well. Another proposal is to make a separate article for Chetniks of Draža Mihailović (the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland / the Ravna Gora Movement), as there is for the Pećanac Chetniks.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Mikola22 and WEBDuB. This is a just a blatant attempt to derail a badly needed rewrite of this article by two editors who haven't even tried to substantially edit the article themselves in years, Antid and Sadko. When I started working on this article yesterday, the lead contained NO information about any other Chetniks than DMs, the Background contained information about earlier Chetniks (as is right, there is no other background to the DM Chetniks), the Body (World War II section) briefly mentioned Pećanac of course but was otherwise completely about DMs Chetniks, the Aftermath was about DMs Chetniks, the Legacy section was about the Chetniks in the 1990s (reflecting on the legacy of the DM Chetniks in those wars) and some historiography limited to the DM Chetniks, the Legacy section was almost entirely about the legacy of DMs Chetniks. NONE of that structure and barely any of the content has changed as a result of my edits, I did not change the structure at all, in fact. My supposed "massive" changes seem to be this diff in which I, among other completely uncontroversial things:

• changed the title at the top of the infobox to match the article title (I am completely open to changing it to the formal name of DMs Chetniks, "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland" per the guidance at Template:Infobox war faction
• changed the years in the infobox to match the years the DM Chetniks were active (as that is clearly what the lead and body of the article are about)
• brought the first sentence into line with MOS:LEADSENTENCE

I have also now fixed a significant number of citation issues, rewritten the Etymology section and added a fresh para to the retitled "Chetnik guerrillas to 1918" subsection of the Background to provide proper historical context to the emergence of the earlier Chetniks.

The changes in the linked diff were merely acknowledging the reality that the article lead and body is all about DMs Chetniks (and has been for years, despite unfounded protestations from the two editors above that the subject of the article is actually a summary article about all Chetniks, there is absolutely no evidence of that in the article itself), that the DM Chetniks are the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Chetniks", and in practical terms there is no way that one article can properly summarise all Chetniks across the ages within the article size restrictions given the enormous amount of sources on the primary topic, the DM Chetniks. The article is already WP:TOOLONG at 16,500 words, more than 50% over the recommended maximum size. Reasonable-sized articles now exist for all the "other" Chetniks: Serbian Chetnik Organization (1904–1908), Chetniks in the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Chetniks in occupied Serbia (1916–18), Chetniks in the Interwar period (1918–1941), and Pećanac Chetniks (1941–1943) which would benefit from further development by interested editors, and they are all linked in this article, so there is now no excuse for those who want to retard the proper encyclopaedic development of this article that the information about other Chetniks is not covered in detail elsewhere. It already is, which it wasn't at the time of previous discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker I’m surprised to see you get blow back as the two editors taking Umbrage, I would think, would be fine with the edits you made. Not sure the controversy. I agree though that this article needs serious work. As appears be some filtering of WWII era crimes to clean up the purity of the Chetnik name. For example the lead mentioned the word genocide once to deny it. Leaving out a number of RS stating otherwise. Also a boiling down of crimes as simple justified “revenge” It is very much undue weight. I agree. As with many articles much work little time to do. OyMosby (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

G'day OyMosby. The lead will follow once the body has been rewritten. The main issue here is the complete fiction that the topic of this article is about "all Chetniks". For starters, the content of the article completely debunks that nonsense, because the lead and body (World War II section) have been about the DM Chetniks for years, with other Chetniks only in the Background and later sections. This is as it should be, because the DM Chetniks are the primary topic of the term "Chetniks", and separate articles now exist on all the other Chetniks, as I've linked above. Sources on the DM Chetniks completely dwarf the sources on all of the other Chetniks combined. This is an indisputable fact, and frankly, WP:BLUE. However, Antid wants this title kept for an overview, when that just isn't what we do on WP. What we actually do is look at two considerations per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

• A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
• A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Examination of the DM Chetniks regarding both usage of the term "Chetniks" to overwhelmingly refer to the DM Chetniks, and the long-term significance of the DM Chetniks as opposed to any other Chetniks clearly points to the DM Chetniks being the primary topic of the term "Chetniks". Anyone with eyes and access to Google Books can see this for themselves, the first ten pages are almost all about the DM Chetniks, and even the ones that are primarily about other Chetniks also mention DMs Chetniks. To make sure people get to the right article, we add a hatnote at the top of the article confirming this article is about DMs Chetniks, and directing interest in other Chetniks to a dab page which lays them all out. That is what needs to be done here. This is WP 101 stuff, which Antid just doesn't seem to get. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Peacemaker67 100%. Chetniks many times refers to the MD Chetniks WWII era as per many sources tend to refer too. However there are things in the lead not even touched in the body of the article I don’t think. Such as McDonald’s views. As you said, as the body is improved, the intro will be as well afterwards. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• This debate is not Eurovision voting system; it's fairly simple - if you want to make massive and fundamental changes to the article - you should seek consensus, especially if there are other editors already disputing you. It is not that hard. Some of the tweaks are good, but not all, and there is no way that badgering the new version while labeling and naming other editors who disagree, as if they are doing something nasty. That's just wrong on so many levels and provides an example of other editors which will follow and behave in the same manners, which, in my opinion very much looks like WP:OWN. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't engaged in this "debate" at all. You demand that I revert what are pretty minor changes (not massive and fundamental changes at all) that merely align the article with its content and the clear primary topic, but haven't engaged with my arguments about the primary topic guidelines or existing content of the article. As far as I can see, several editors agree with my edits, so I won't be reverting the changes unless that changes. As far as I can see, you are being oppositional without any basis or argument. That is tendentious behaviour, and I'm not rewarding it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse facts?

• Collaboration with the Independent State of Croatia
• After the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks in occupied Serb territory, the Chetnik groups in central, eastern, and northwestern Bosnia, specifically the Dinara Division, found themselves caught between the German and Ustaše (NDH) forces on one side and the Partisans on the other. In early 1942 Chetnik Major Jezdimir Dangić approached the Germans in an attempt to arrive at an understanding, but was unsuccessful, and the local Chetnik leaders were forced to look for another solution

• This introduction, in my opinion seems like excuse for collaboration. Given that first sentences are introduction to this section and because they give a one-sided view of things ie OR, these facts should not be without confirmation in the source. The Chetniks could join the Partisans and become Partisans, no one forbade them to do so. We do not know situation at that time especially for all areas and all "Chetnik leaders", the Italians (which are not mentioned here) are close by, with whom the Chetniks have good relations. For that reason, until quality sources appear which confirm this facts I suggest that this information be removed from the article. They can easily return to the introductory part when RS appears. Mikola22 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

These sentences have been tagged as needing a RS for two years, just delete them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

I have placed a link to the relevant section for Ideology in the infobox and removed the list that was there. This is because the issue is complex, some claims are contested and complex issues are not best explained in an infobox. It will also help to reduce infobox edit-warring, as ideologies are a common subject for such activity. All of the ideologies that were in the infobox list are now covered in appropriate detail in the relevant section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Information from the source

Ba Congress

The Ba Congress held in January 1944 marked a change in the main war objective of Chetniks, instead of their initial aim to restore the pre-war Yugoslavia as a unitary monarchy, they accepted Yugoslavia as a federal state structure with a dominant Serb federal unit

• Information from the source: Točka 4 b rezolucije kongresa kaže: "Jugoslavija treba da bude uređena kao federativna država u obliku ustavne i parlamentarne nasledne monarhije, sa narodnom dinastijom Karađorđevića i Kraljem Petrom II na čelu..." Item 4 b of the congress resolution says: "Yugoslavia should be organized as a federal state in the form of a constitutional and parliamentary hereditary monarchy, with the Karadjordjevic dynasty and King Peter II at the head. Jozo Tomasevich: Chetniks [1]
• It remains to be seen whether this information is for the introductory part and if this information is for introductory part then must be aligned with the source. Mikola22 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be tempered with the information regarding the real outcome of the Congress, per the Ba Congress article, which is that "The net effect of this, according to Tomasevich, was that the country would not only return to the same Serb-dominated state it had been in during the interwar period, but would be worse than that, particularly for the Croats." and "The historian Marko Attila Hoare agrees that despite its superficial Yugoslavism, the congress had clear Greater Serbia inclinations, and the historian Lucien Karchmar concludes that the usage of the term "Saint Sava Congress" reinforced the impression that it was focussed on the aspirations of Serbs rather than Yugoslavs in general." I doubt it will remain in the lead once the article has been rewritten, unless as a short sentence saying the Ba Congress was effectively abortive. But I do not envisage touching the lead significantly until the rest of the article has been rewritten. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Mikola22 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The Ravna Gora Movement

• Colonel Draža Mihailović, who was "interested in resisting the occupying powers", set up his headquarters in Ravna Gora and named his group "The Ravna Gora Movement" in order to distinguish it from the Pećanac Chetniks. However, other Chetniks were engaged in collaboration with the Germans and the Chetnik name became again associated with Mihailović. I edit this information according to the source, but we have and this information "kad je Mihailovićeva grupa shvatila da ne postoje nikakvi ostaci jugoslavenske vojske koji se bore u planinama unutrašnjosti, i prvih dana na Ravnoj Gori, ona se suočila s dilemom: da li se sa zakašnjenjem predati okupacionim vlastima i vjerojatno biti najoštrije kažnjen, ili postati jezgra pokreta otpora. Mihailović i njegovi ljudi odabrali su drugu alternativu i tako su počeli egzistirati kao vrlo sporan pokret otpora u Jugoslaviji. "when Mihailovic's group realized that there were no remnants of the Yugoslav army fighting in the mountains of the interior, even in the early days of Ravna Gora, it faced a dilemma: whether to be late to surrender to the occupying authorities and likely be severely punished, or to become the core resistance. Mihailović and his men chose the second alternative and thus began to exist as a very controversial resistance movement in Yugoslavia." This source and information does not mention any "order to distinguish it from the Pećanac Chetniks". and this information "Ubrzo nakon dolaska na Ravnu Goru, Mihailović i njegovi ljudi organizirali su komandno mjesto i prozvali se "Četnički odredi jugoslovenske vojske".."Shortly after arriving in Ravna Gora, Mihailovic and his men organized a command post and called themselves the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army". The name "The Ravna Gora Movement" is not mentioned here. Source: Jozo Tomasevich Chetniks [2] Mikola22 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That bit about "The Ravna Gora Movement" and "order to distinguish it from the Pećanac Chetniks" is actually in Roberts, not Tomasevich. I just checked it, and while I might change it slightly, it is essentially correct. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I know it's from Roberts(I did not properly separate this two sources) but this information below are from Tomasevich and they seem different in conclusion. Mikola22 (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because Tomasevich doesn't mention it (he actually has it in the index with a see wartime Chetniks), doesn't mean Roberts isn't right. Unless of course the majority of sources don't use the term. But in my experience, "The Ravna Gora Movement" is a well-known alternative name for the DM Chetniks, and Tomasevich having it in the index is good enough for me. There is no issue here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but Tomasevich does not mention at all Pećanac in context ( distinguish it from the Pećanac Chetniks) because he states completely different reasons(as I see it). If there is no issue here I accept that. Mikola22 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Instructions to Pećanac

In April and May 1941 the HQ of Yugoslav Royal Army entrusted Kosta Pećanac with task to establish guerilla Chetnik detachment(dubious).

• I find this information from Tomasevich Chetniks "Izgleda, nadalje, da se kratko vrijeme prije invazije vojska obratila Kosti Pećancu, dajući mu ovlaštenja, oružje i novac da organizira gerilske jedinice. O tome će još biti riječi"..."It appears, further, that shortly before the invasion, the army approached Kosta Pecanac, giving him powers, weapons, and money to organize guerrilla units. That will be discussed later." [3] So this information is probably correct. Mikola22 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The headquarters of the Yugoslav army surrendered on 17 April, so it would have been impossible for it to give Pećanac any tasks in May. That is what is highly dubious about this sentence. All the generals were travelling into exile with the government or were POWs from 17 April and in no position to issue orders to anyone. Both of the sources are Serb nationalist and revisionist historians (Ekmečić and Dimitrijević), and the statement defies logic. I'll be deleting it when I get to it. There are reliable sources that Pećanac was given the task of organising guerilla operations in southern Serbia shortly before the invasion (eg Tomasevich, 1975, p. 126) but not after it started or after the surrender. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have modified this to reflect what Tomasevich says. As far as I am concerned, this is resolved, the tag has been removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claim about proportion of Muslim Chetniks at end of 1943

I have tagged DM's claim (in Malcolm) as dubious, Hoare (p. 51) clearly states that after the Partisans entered eastern Herzegovina in July 1943 and killed the two leaders, the Muslim National Military Organisation (ie Muslim Chetniks) disintegrated, so how could they have had 4,000 members at the end of that year? More reliable sources are going to be needed for this extraordinary claim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That part of the article says that A few Sandžak and Bosnian Muslims supported Mihailović, but according to the historian Noel Malcolm, Mihailović claimed that in December 1943, Muslims comprised up to eight percent of his forces, numbering about 4,000. It is patent that it is a claim made by DM, not a given fact. For more clarification, one could add next to it Hoare, sth in the lines of "However, Hoare notes that the Partisans entered eastern Herzegovina in July 1943 and killed the two leaders, and the Muslim National Military Organisation disintegrated", or whatever Hoare says about the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, however that approach would be giving what is a dubious (and basically self-serving) claim undue weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So do you propose that the best solution is the removal of the claim? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Interwar period

Available documentation shows that in Croatia from 1934 Chetnik subcommittees were established in a number of cities such as Zagreb, Sisak, Bjelovar, Osijek, Našice, Virovitica, Vukovar, Nova Gradiška, Okučani, Đakovo, Koprivnica, Križevci, Varaždin, Duga Resa, Drežnica, Gospić, Donji Lapac, Gračac, Karlovac, Knin, Drniš, Kistanje, Dubrovnik, Susak. Escalation of ethnic relations, especially the conflict between Serbs and Croats was certainly influenced by creating these organizations.

• I think that this information should be part of the article, in my opinion this is important information for which I did not know about, nor have I read about it. Information is from quality RS so I suggest that this information be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is already summarised in the article, I took out that level of detail because the article is already far too big. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I know it's too big and I support your work, but. You mean at this? "Subcommittees were also formed in Croatia, mostly in areas inhabited by Serbs"?[4] But the source states Zagreb, Osijek, Đakovo, Varaždin, Dubrovnik, Susak, Karlovac, Duga Resa (it seems to me that and Knin till beginning of WWII has mostly Croat population). At that time, the Serb population mostly lived in villages so there were some small number of Serbs in these cities(at that time), but these cities are not in area "mostly inhabited by Serbs" these cities are in most of Croatia where the majority of Serbs did not live. So for me it’s a very interesting fact. If there is a consensus to return this information I would be grateful if it won't be I respect that. This is not against you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misreading what I wrote. I wrote “mostly in areas inhabited by Serbs", you wrote “mostly inhabited by Serbs”. They don’t mean the same thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad intro into article - very confusing

Article starts with following sentence: "The Chetniks (Serbo-Croatian: Четници / Četnici, pronounced [tʃɛ̂tniːtsi]; Slovene: Četniki), formally the Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army, and also the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland and the Ravna Gora Movement, was a Yugoslav royalist and Serbian nationalist movement and guerrilla force[1][2][3] in Axis-occupied Yugoslavia"

It mixes grandmothers and frogs. Formal forces of Yugoslav Royal Army named Chetniks - not Yugoslav army as that can be applied or confused with later communist army - existed before war started in Yugoslavia and continued their operations during World war II until 18, April 1941. Formal forces where formed on 24. april 1940. in Novi Sad. There was some unofficial units formed by people who called themselves Chetniks that had nothing to do with formal units. Formal units where formed as special forces and where called "Četničke jurišne jedinice" and "Jurišni jedinice". There was six battalions of this units they had nothing to do with Yugoslav royalist and Serbian nationalist movement and guerrilla force as incorrectly stated in first sentence of this article. There are already sources in article that explain all of this. Loesorion (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The primary topic of the term “Chetnik” on Wikipedia is the Chetniks of Mihailovic, not an obscure and short-lived arm of the Royal Yugoslav Army that never even fought in the way intended. That is why this article begins the way it does. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but this article including headline is not just about "Chetniks of Mihailovic" and in article there is already many sentences about Royal Yugoslav Army Chetniks and in its intro it is inappropriate use of formal Chetniks units and mixing them all in one confusing sentence.

Also there was later formal units formed in small parts of formal Chetniks units that did not surrender or where destroyed together with parts of other units of Royal Yugoslavia army that did not surrender or where destroyed with other volunteers that continued their formal role during rest of war in Yugoslavia area given by formal military command of Yugoslavia Royal armed forces that formed JVuO under command of Yugoslavia government in exile and their King.

It is important not to confuse readers by giving them false impressions and making confusing sentences that has nothing to do with reality.

You are free to make new article about as you improperly call them "Chetniks of Mihailovic" but in meantime this article need to be straighten up because claims it makes that has nothing to do with reality.

Loesorion (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It provides background to the primary topic, as all Wikipedia articles should do. This includes explaining where the concept of Chetniks came from, but the subject of this article is the DM Chetniks, the other Chetniks that are independently notable are covered in other articles which are linked at the top of the Background sections and all of them are listed at Chetniks (disambiguation). You need to understand Wikipedia policies before you start editing what is a sometimes controversial article. The current lead is the result of significant discussion over many years between experienced editors. I suggest you read the talk page archives regarding this issue. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions under the Arbitration Committee, and if you disrupt it you can expect to be blocked or banned from editing. I have placed a notice on your talk page explaining the latter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies has nothing to do with mixing grandmothers and frogs in intro of this article. If in this article subject is as you claim only about "DM Chetniks" then delete all others content and rename it as Chetniks - word - collectively does not imply only Chetniks of Draza Mihalilovic. If other articles you mentions as disambiguation can have more precise article title then this one can to. You claim some thing as experience(whatever that means) but you support wrong intro in this article and give some stances about this article they are not? Since this article is in many part about all Chethics not a single group or organization within them stick to subject of this topic for start, without claiming things about this article they obviously are not. Loesorion (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the primary topic policy I linked. Chetniks is the common name for DM's Chetniks. That is why this article is titled "Chetniks". It provides background to the general "Chetnik guerilla" concept that preceded DM Chetniks, because that is what we do in Wikipedia articles, provide relevant background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming this article or editing content to be in harmony with current title

If this article is supposed to be about Chetniks member's of Draža Mihailović and JVO then it should be renamed. As term Chetniks is not all about JVO and Draža Mihailović then this title is misguiding if we are looking at content and some editors stance about it that it is only about Draža Mihailović. First thing about Chetniks we learn from history is about Serbian Chetniks fighting Ottoman rules and organization that aimed of liberating Old Serbia. Etymology of word Chetniks was coined during Ottoman occupations of parts of Serbs lands. This article need to be about all Chetnics or it should be renamed if its goal is to talk only about JVO and Chetniks under leadership of Draža Mihailović. People come here to read about all Chetniks as that term is here alone in title, if it is not about all Chetniks then we should rename it accordingly. Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army or Yugoslav Army in the Homeland - this is a few examples of proper titles for this article if it is only about JVO and Draža Mihailović.

You do not give article title Airplane on Wikipedia and then talk about only one type of airplane in article with such title and then tell others editors to stick to just one model of airplane? Loesorion (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your example is misleading, and a link to the other Chetnik articles is prominently displayed in a hatnote at the top of the article for those that are looking for articles on other "Chetniks" above. The body of the article (excepting the Etymology and Background sections) is only about DM's Chetniks (and their post-war legacy), I have explained why the title is just "Chetniks" above. The Etymology and Background sections are needed to provide important context to DM's Chetniksm and provide specific links to the other Chetniks they describe. Your comments reflect that you have either not read and understood the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UCN policies I have linked above, or you don't accept them. Editing Wikipedia is a WP:CHOICE, if you don't accept Wikipedia policies, you can either try to change them (this is not the place, I suggest asking for advice at the Village Pump policy page), you can accept and abide by them, or you can choose not to edit Wikipedia. Up to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheta is Serbian word, not turkish.

Cheta is Serbian, word not turkish. 178.149.124.107 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have a source that contradicts the source in the article that says it has a Turkish root, then feel free to add it and contrast the different sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In medieval Serbian documents, word ,,Četa" is used for unit which contained about 300 soldiers. 178.221.115.120 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have explained what you need to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 Please provide sources for your claims about etymology of the word "četa". There is no sources for any of claims I marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ђидо (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:INLINECITE. Citations cover all material between them and the preceding citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I have no access to this printed source. Please quote relevant sentences from the source backing up those ridiculous claims. I know that it is utter bull, but I'll need a bit of time to provide correct etymology with sources. Wiktionary actually provides good summary, but does not contain third-party sources. However, entry for Turkish word does not metione any of those claims (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A7ete) Ђидо (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Particularly this:

> "Chetnik" is said to originate from the Turkish word çete, which means "to plunder and burn down",

This is total misinformation -- Wiktionary for [чета](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0) says that it originates from Proto-Slavic, and you can see that virtually all Slavic languages have same word with same meaning: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/%C4%8Deta

> In 1848, Matija Ban, who coined the term "Chetnik", mentioned it in terms of the need to organise armed units outside the Principality of Serbia in order to fight the Ottoman rule.

Where is this coming from?! I have not heard ever this, and there are no articles anywhere else connecting Matija Ban with chetnik movement, which does not seem to be existing before 1890's, starting with Bulgarian cheta's. EDIT: There are few articles in Serbian tabloids repeating exactly same one sentence claiming that, but I am yet to find any source corroborating that.

> The first such units had been formed around the mid-18th century, but until the end of the 19th century the term "Chetnik" was used to refer to regular members of the army and police;

Again, where is this from?

I'm entirely uninterested in whether you believe it is "utter bull" or not. I added that material myself using the cited source, which is available to anyone through The Wikipedia Library and can therefore be easily verified without me cutting and pasting material out of context here. It is published in Democracy and Security in Southeastern Europe available via the Central and Eastern European Online Library. It is published by the Atlantic Initiative, a non-partisan organisation, and the authors are both researchers/analysts working for that organisation. It is a reliable source. If you have a reliable source that contradicts this information, we would add that material, cited to that source, and compare and contrast the two versions of the etymology. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)'

So, I have read the article. Besides being strongly biased against Serbs, and quoting numerous sources, whole etymology section seems to be completely fabricated, without any supporting sources cited in the footnotes. (Do not quote WP:INLINECITE back to me -- etymology section is between references 7 and 8, and 8 is not about source of the word at all. Additionally, text in Wikipedia article is completely copied, verbatim, from the source. I am not 100% about Wikipedia citation style, but generally, when you grab a sentence from a source material, you enclose it in quotes, which does not happen here. Ђидо (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right that it was too closely paraphrased (It wasn't exactly the same, but it was too close). I have fixed that now. The section is not "fabricated", it is from a reliable source. As I have said, if you have reliable sources that disagree, then we would add that material, cited to that source, and compare and contrast the two versions of the etymology. I am ignoring the claimed bias of the article, the parts I have had anything to do with (down to Ideology) are based on highly reliable and well-respected sources published by university presses or in reputable journals like Tomasevich, Mitrović, Tasić, Ramet, Newman, Jelić-Butić, Singleton, Milazzo, Pavlowitch etc. Which is exactly what you would expect in an article on this subject on Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Using Etymological Dictionary as a Source Should be Preferred

Better source on etymology of word "četa" would be actual proper etymologic dictionary of our language, don't you think? Here is one:

Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Petar Skok, p. 314 (JAZU, Zagreb, 1971)

> četa f (Vuk, 15. v.) = ieto n (Zoranie, Kosmet) »troupe, Schaar«. Praslavenski ratnički izraz poznat svim Slavenima osim Česima. U poljskom je czata posuženica iz madžarskoga. Nema paralela u baltičkoj grupi (upor. ipak skesti) nego u italokeltskoj : lat. caterva i ir. cethern imaju istu osnovu i isto znaćenje. Odatle deminutiv na -ica četica f, pridjevi na -en i -Ъn: četen potvrđen samo u četenik, određeni četni, odatle poimeničenje na -ik: četnik m prema četnica T; četnik »1° član čete; koji četuje.

> [trans.] Proto-Slavic warrior term known to all Slavs except Czechs. In Polish, "czata" is a loanword from Hungarian. It does not have parallels in Baltic family (however, compare "skesti") but in Italo-Celtic family: lat. caterva and Irish cethern have same root and same meaning. From it, deminutive with -ica suffix: četica (f), adjectives with -en and -Ъn: četen, confirmed only as četenik, definitive form četni, from which comes via noun-building suffix -ik: četnik (m)... 1) Member of četa, that who fights as a part of četa.

Further, entry also clarifies that Turkish, among other non-Slavic Balkan languages, took word "četa" as a loanword.

I will be updating the article tomorrow, once I collect more sources. There are more etymology dictionaries for Serbian/Croatian available, which I am quite sure will corroborate Skok's findings. Ђидо (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in the entry from a linguistics dictionary on Serbo-Croatian from outside of the former Yugoslavia given the word "Turk" is a pejorative there. However, given your concerns and the fact that neither author of the journal article is a linguist, TaivoLinguist is a linguistics professor who has had really helpful and scientific input on other articles that I have edited over the years, perhaps they could chime in about whether the journal article is accurate or not, and offer alternative sources on the etymology of the word "Chetnik"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

So Peacemaker67, any news here? Are you going to allow me to correct obviously incorrect and biased etymology section? I actually have linguistic sources mentioned below. Ђидо (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Just re-pinging TaivoLinguist in case he wishes to chime in either way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is etymological dictionary of eminent linguist in Serbo-Croatian, published by Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences, Zagreb, in 1971. I do not know what else you can consider more authoritative on subject of etymology of Serbo-Croatian? BTW, where is "Turk" used a pejorative? In the dictionary? Ђидо (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point about authors of controversial (to me, at least) article are not linguists. Coupled with that, in article with _very extensive_ citations, they failed to cite any single source for a whole paragraph on etymology which seems to paint the word itself in very negative, pejorative way, I wonder how you can continue to defend retaining so bad etymology section? Ђидо (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The dictionary is from the communist period, when many texts had to be "politically correct". I'll wait for more sources and hopefully for TL to comment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Politically correct toward defeated enemy in a civil war? If anything, a "communist" dictionary would not be "PC" towards chetniks which were just defeated by those communists 25 years before publishing. Ђидо (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

undoubtedly Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences modified origin of word to not offend Chetnik veterans who were also eminent communist party comrades Ananyared88 (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss /s here?! Ђидо (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I know it is "just" a web site, but here are defitions of "četa" and "četnik" from Croatian Language Portal:

> četa

> četnik

Those probably do not have pro-Serbian bias, I would guess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ђидо (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just saw the ping on Wikipedia (I've been away from it for a few days). So I'm guessing that my input is desired with "other" etymological dictionaries? According to A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára csata is first attested in Hungarian in 1532 and is described as "Szerb-horvát eredetű" (Serbo-Croatian origin). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

I would like to edit this page as there is some historically inaccurate information and bias in the page MC3Firestorm (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Invasion of Yugoslavia lines of attack Why We Fight no. 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SDK CoA.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Today, the word "Chetnik" is used

- Today, the word "Chetnik" is used to refer to members of any group that "centres the hegemonic and expansionist politics driven by Greater Serbia ideology".

The word also holds pejorative meaning for Serbian ethnic group. Why is one meaning mentioned and the other is not? Who gets to choose that? It is not the full truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.215.22 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Because this article is about the historical group during WW2.50.111.34.214 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Being Chetnih is a honorable term, in Orthodox Serbian lands - Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

Sabrina Ramet is one of hundreds historians who wrote about ww2 in Yugoslavia. Why are her claims involved in this article? Why not claims of other historians? 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This appears to be a critique of the article, rather than a request for a specific edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that too. It is rare to quote one historian in the lead. Further down would be fine. I'm tired, but I'm tempted to reorganise the lead. These articles are very touchy. I had a Croatian friend when I was young and survived some serious Serbian/Croatian fights. In 1971. In Canada. People put a lot of incendiary content in. The different points of view must all be respected, but actually integrated. Sometimes it reads like "chopped and changed".

Generally, Wiki style is not to delete her, but add another, if you feel there is something missing. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Tidying up the lead.

Hi all, I know there are different perspectives. I respect them all. The lead has been written and edited so many times it reads like "chop and change". I'm going to re-organise it into a better flow. There is some unnecessary repetition, which I will delete. Collaboration is a huge issue, I understand. I will provide context for this. Please do not revert my edit. I'm just trying to put some writerly skills into providing clarity. Trust me. Thank you. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

G'day Billy, it is obvious a compromise, but it is a long-standing one. I strongly recommend you put a draft here before rewriting the lead of a highly controversial article such as this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)