Talk:Cetinje massacre

Use of authors, titles and quotes in Serbo-Croatian language
This is English Wikipedia. Please provide all authors' names, titles of sources and quotations in English to allow other editors who do not understand Serbo-Croatian to read them. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those of us who are familiar with post-Yugoslav historiography know exactly the framework within which Đuretić's work operates. For the unfamiliar reader provides a great overview: --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Đuretić was just the first (if you don't count Petranović's 1983 Revolucija i kontrarevolucija u Jugoslaviji (1941-1945) which started down the "Chetniks as anti-fascists" rabbit hole), the more recent examples are far worse, they are stereotypical historical negationists, working with the state and judiciary to deny mounds of international academic research about the collaboration and war crimes of the Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

POV
This article contains some pretty egregious POV from the Serbian negationist historian Bojan Dimitrijević, whose views on the Chetnik movement are decidedly fringe. I have tagged the article and done some work to weed out the worst of the POV language and tone. There is more to do. I've also moved the article to a title in line with other massacre articles like Srebrenica massacre and Krnjeuša massacre. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are some informations from RS: rehabilitation of Milan Nedić, "Tim povodom  organizovali smo polemiku između Bojana Dimitrijevića, koji se zalaže za rehabilitaciju, i Milana Radanovića, samostalnog istraživača iz Beograda, koji smatra da bi to bilo skandalozno".."On that occasion, we organized a debate between Bojan Dimitrijevic, who advocates for rehabilitation, and Milan Radanovic, an independent researcher from Belgrade, who thinks that it would be scandalous." "Dimitrijević je u nastavku svedočenja tvrdio da Nedićeva vlada, kao ni sam Nedić ne mogu biti odgovorni za holokaust, jer do kraja 1943. godine nije mogao da kontroliše pripadnike svojih bezbednosnih struktura.".." Dimitrijevic claimed that Nedic's government, as well as Nedic himself, could not be responsible for the Holocaust, because until the end of 1943, he could not control the members of his security structures." "Bojan Dimitrijević, istoričar , čija je uža specijalnost četnički pokret , kaže da su " prilike , nastale posle okupacije 1941 . godine možda najteži period istorije Srbije . Potezi koje su povlačili Dimitrije Ljotić i Milan Nedić ne mogu se gledati izvan konteksta".."Bojan Dimitrijevic, a historian whose specialty is the Chetnik movement, says that "the circumstances that arose after the occupation in 1941 may have been the most difficult period in Serbian history. The moves made by Dimitrije Ljotić and Milan Nedic cannot be seen out of context." Book "Yellow Star, Red Star: Holocaust Remembrance after Communism" and information about  Bojan Dimitrijević


 * If Ljubica Štefan and her book is not RS(because of some claims) I think it must be applied identically, in this case as well. Mikola22 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Additional information from RS, Slobodanka Ast: "Među istoričarima koji se zalažu za rehabilitaciju  Nedića, najglasniji je, dr Bojan Dimitrijević, savetnik u beogradskom Institutu za savremenu istoriju i opštepoznat promoter akademskog istorijskog revizionizma i rehabilitovanja kvislinškog pokreta (vrlo angažovan u slučaju Draže Mihailovića)"..""Among the historians who advocate for the rehabilitation of Nedić, the loudest is Dr. Bojan Dimitrijević, an advisor at the Belgrade Institute of Contemporary History and a well-known promoter of academic historical revisionism and the rehabilitation of the Quisling movement (very engaged in the case of Draža Mihailović)." This information is published by: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia(2015) page 13-14  and publication  Mikola22 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there are going to have to be carve-outs for some of these former Yugoslav historians. It may be that a case needs to be made at RSN about Dimitrijević regarding his work on WWII. I mean, he is a leading negationist, was instrumental in the highly dubious rehabilitation of DM, and he tried very hard to get Nedić rehabilitated and was thrown out of the Democratic Party for it. I'll have a think about it. As far as Štefan is concerned, the same applies. The factual error about German-occupied Serbia was a really egregious falsehood obviously intended to demonise Serbs over the Holocaust, and the nonsense she came out with about post-war Jasenovac is laughable. Some historians just aren't useable on Wikipedia because their opinions are too fringe. They can often be used for basic uncontested facts, but nothing controversial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, for Štefan I did not know because she is a respected historian in Croatia and the first time I heard some things but if she is not acceptable for Wikipedia I think and that those historians who participate in various rehabilitations and who have questionable claims are also not acceptable for Wikipedia. Both have RS ie book but I think the same must be apply in both cases. Mikola22 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What this underlines is the care that needs to be taken when using local history sources, especially with the political and juridical character of historical negationism that is prevalent in both Croatia and Serbia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem?
The communists used gun and mortar fire to constantly attack both Chetniks and civilians while they retreated toward Podgorica Everything happens in war and this is also possible but  this is from the book of (Димитријевић, Бојан (2019). Голгота Четника) Dimitrijević Bojan. As far as I can see he is being called as revisionist and probably his book is not neutral. Is such a book RS at all?


 * 1) The obvious problem is constant hounding and group attacks on Anti's articles, and that's putting it mildly. I have started gathering evidence for this rather obvious fact. 2) Blogs are not relevant for Wikipedia, even less blogs of people who use it for verbal battles with ideological opponents, which is the case here. There are multiple interpretations of the symbol on his T-shirt. It was a pagan symbol long before. 3) This sort of streetlike attempts to discredit historians is outrageous.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: 1) You go right ahead. That is one boomerang that will come back. Antid has a long history of creating POV articles and has had a lengthy TBAN in this very area for tendentious editing. If you want to nail your colours to that mast, feel free. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . 1) Feel free to falsely accuse me again, it's your right. And it is my right to edit articles and align them with the sources to be of better quality. As far as I can see, you're just following what I'm doing and gathering evidence, day after day, I don't know for what, perhaps for a reward for conscientious editing Wikipedia. 2) I didn’t know it was a private blog(I thought it was someone's official medium) because I was doing something so I didn’t check it out, but you still write it down in your book just in case. 3) As far as we know, Ljubica Štefan is not desirable on Wikipedia and one of the main awards in Croatia has her name, so someone from Serbia may not be wanted on Wikipedia either. It is not the end of the world. Mikola22 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)