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)