Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 6

Mentality of the Montenegrin nationalists
The text of the article says:


 * "...nationalists having closer ties with Serbia and a "frontier" mentality towards Muslims..."

I think it is probably wrong to attribute a certain mentality to Montenegrin nationalists, and to imply it is because being close to Serbia. Therefore I propose a careful rewording or removal of this part of text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have misinterpreted what is written in the article. The text is an accurate rendering of the meaning conveyed by the Pavlowitch citation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not interpret it. I quoted it. But its sourced is not valid argument in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you quoted it out of context, which affects the meaning, comprehension is often an issue I have observed with your comments regarding sources and text in articles. This is another example, in my opinion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
The time period for archiving on this talk page is overly long at 60 days. I changed it to 30 days, but Ad appears to think this is too short. Perhaps we can agree on 45 days? There are several threads on this page that have been inactive for some time, and it would be better if inactive threads were archived quicker. Of course, if a thread is active, the clock re-sets each time a comment is made in that thread. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no particular need to archive this page faster. On the contrary. Taking in consideration that many issues are not addressed because a couple of editors disagree, prolonging archive period to 75 days would make more sense because it would increase the chance that some uninvolved editor would join the discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any increase in archive period. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the review
I began reviewing this article based on the request at WikiProject Serbia diff. This is a permanent link to the version of the article at the moment of this request. I immediately realized that this article has not even met GA criteria because of its numerous issues. Since this topic was never subject of my particular interest it took more time to research this matter in more depth. I pointed to more than 50 issues, submitted sources with translation if it was necessary and proposed exactly how to resolve them. More than 30 of them (more than 60%) were resolved by reaching a consensus at article's talkpage. The consensus was not reached for about 20 of my remarks.

To summarize all issues I pointed to during the review of this article (both resolved and non-resolved by consensus) or noticed during my research of the subject, I prepared a summary of my review.

I hope this summary might be helpful for future development of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Repetitive and WP:TLDR. A shopping list of issues you are not willing to even try to address in article space. If you are so sure about all this, nominate this article for FA review, and we'll see what the community thinks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory text and undue weight given to Đurišić as source
Significant part of this article is based on report of Đurišić:


 * In mid-February, during their advance north-west into Herzegovina in preparation for their involvement in Case White, Đurišić's Lim–Sandžak detachment received further orders for "cleansing actions" against Muslims. It committed further atrocities against the Muslim population, this time in part of the Pljevlja county in Sandžak, and Čajniče county and part of the Foča county in Bosnia. In a report to Mihailović dated 13 February 1943, Đurišić reported that his forces had killed 9,200 Muslims, including approximately 1,200 Muslim combatants and about 8,000 women, children and the elderly.... + large portion of quoted text from his report.

There are several issues with this text:

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It gives undue weight to primary source written by Đurišić
 * 2) It contradicts to actual number of killed Muslims and actual orders of Đurišić and Mihajlović:
 * 3) The figure of 9,200 killed Muslims does not correspond to the actual number of killed Muslims during WWI in this municipalities (Pljevlja 1370, Foča 3527 and Čajniče 598). Majority of victims in Foča and Čajniče were not killed in 1943 by Đurišić forces. (link to work of Dedijer and Miletić with list of victims)
 * 4) "received further orders for "cleansing actions"" is unreferenced and contradict to the sources. The official orders issued by Đurišić (link) says "do not kill women and children" (Postupak; Italijane ne napadati. Sve borce Muslimane, Ustaše i komuniste ubijati. Žene i decu ne ubijati. ). The official order issued by Mihajlović (link) says: "prevent murder of innocent people, women and children" ("ubijanje nevinihljudi, žena i dece spreči")


 * The article uses reliable secondary sources for this information, not primary sources.
 * a. it is not a "significant" part of the article in terms of size, making up only 213 words out of an article of nearly 4,500 words, ie less than 5% of the article. The events themselves are significant, given they relate to the killing of 10,000 people, but the bit you are referring to is hardly "significant" in terms of the size of the article.
 * b. Djurisic's report is not used a reference. The citations from reliable secondary sources which describe the massacres and his reports are from Tomasevich, Mozjes and Judah.
 * c. the reference to receiving further orders for cleansing actions is from Tomasevich on page 258 where he refers to the Chetniks from Montenegro that were "ordered early in January and again in early in February to undertake what were known as "cleansing actions" against the Moslems..." The wording of the article is entirely consistent with Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment is incorrect and fallacious.
 * I did not complain about the size of text which describe killings of Muslims. I complained about the size of text based on Đurišić report. Tomasevich does not give a number of killed Muslims as his own opinion. He presented figures given by Đurišić's report. Same goes for long quotation from Judah work. This quoted text was not written by Judah but by Đurišić.
 * This figures given by Đurišić contradict to official figures presented by Dedijer and Miletić and this contradiction should be presented to readers.
 * Can you present text of the January and February orders which contain "cleansing actions" term?
 * Can you present a quote from my comment in which I refer to killing of Muslims as "hardly significant"?
 * I did not say that Đurišić report is used as reference. Informations from Đurišić report are referenced with Tomasevich and Judah and attributed to Đurišić both in the sources and in the text of the article.
 * I did not complain for using Tomasevich as source. I complained because of undue weight given to Đurišić report presented in works of Tomasevich and Judah.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment is rude, and reflects your poor English language comprehension. In fact, most of your points above are effectively unintelligible, even to me, and I know the subject material reasonably well. I defy any other editor to explain to me what you are on about. I will try to divine what you are trying to say and respond, but it is very difficult to respond appropriately when I only have the vaguest idea what point you are trying to make.
 * a. you said "a significant part of the article", but it is not significant in terms of the size of the article. I was responding to your comment, if your comment is poorly worded, that is hardly my fault.
 * b. the amount of text based on secondary sources discussing Djurisic's report is even less than the amount of text based on secondary sources discussing Djurisic's killing of Muslims, so, as I stated above, you are wrong, it is not a significant part of the article in terms of size. In terms of the importance of the events, I believe the whole subject of the killings of Muslims is significant for this article, but I do not believe that the subject has been given undue weight in the article.
 * c. Tomasevich uses the term "cleansing actions" on page 258. Do you mean you would like me to quote the relevant passage from Tomasevich? I thought you had access to a copy?
 * d. You have completely failed to comprehend my comment that included the words "hardly "significant"". It is not my problem if you don't understand English.
 * e. We don't decide what reliable secondary sources use, they do. I fail to see how your comment about weight applies here. The details from the report are mentioned by three reliable secondary sources, we assume they looked at original primary sources, but we don't drill down into the report ourselves, because it is a primary source.
 * If you can't explain what your issue is better than the above, I fail to see what I am supposed to do or say in response. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of Đurišić's Chetniks tried to return to Montenegro
Resolved Not all Djurisic's Chetniks went toward West after Lijevce Polje defeat. According to some sources, a part of Đurišić's Chetniks tried to return to their homes after Lijevce Polje defeat. They were intercepted in Herzegovina by the Communist forces who killed most of them.



The same source says that new Communist authorities terrorized families of Đurišić's Chetniks for long time in after-war period, although most of their Chetnik relatives died during the war. They were second-grade citizens, beaten, terrorized and some even killed.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some sources"? I assume you mean reliable sources? You have one source thus far, that appears to me to be published by a local government organ of some sort. Who is the author? Of course, it is very important that we ensure that sources are reliable. How does this source meet the WP:RS criteria exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Does it mean that you insist that I should present more sources?
 * Do you think this source is less reliable than SUBNOR and press releases used in this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is up to you (not me) to explain how the source you have produced is reliable. If there are other sources, perhaps you should present them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it mean that you insist that I should present more sources? Some Chetniks tried to return to Sandžak. On their way home Communists attacked and killed most of them. Their families became second grade citizens for many years after the war. I think this is probably "sky is blue" assertion. Don't you agree? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not even close. I'm happy for the information to be included so long as at least one reliable source for the material is provided. If not, not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not even close? Are you sure you didn't overlook something? Doesn't Tomašević (1975) (work that you extensively mention in articles you write) mention that 12,000 Chetniks tried to return to Serbia on 13 April and that most of them were attacked and killed by the Communists on their way home? Fortunately Google Books allows this page of English language work to be seen. On the page 453, note 68, Tomasevich stated that Mihajlović was actually explaining the retreat of 20,000 Serbian and Montenegrin Chetniks. I think you are again caught red-handed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this? Does Tomasevich say that "a part of Đurišić's Chetniks tried to return to their homes after Lijevce Polje defeat. They were intercepted in Herzegovina by the Communist forces who killed most of them."? If so, I am happy for you to add that to the article along with a citation to the relevant page of Tomasevich. If not, you are still short of establishing a reliable source for your assertion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious that Tomasevich directly supports the sourced information I presented. He confirms that on 13 April (which is after the battle of Lijevče Polje) Mihajlović and Chetniks from Serbia (part of Sandžak, under Đurišić command is in Serbia) joined by some Montenegrin Chetniks tried to return from Bosnia. Tomasevich explains their annihilation by the Communists in detail. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on what you have presented above, he clearly does not. But I will check Tomasevich for anything that might support your contention that "a part of Đurišić's Chetniks tried to return to their homes after Lijevce Polje defeat. They were intercepted in Herzegovina by the Communist forces who killed most of them.". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider that Tomasevich p. 453 does not support your assertion because he refers to about 12,000 Serbian Chetniks. I might add that on p. 447 (fn 447), Tomasevich mentions 200 Sandzak Chetniks of Vuk Kalaitovic initially accompanying Djurisic but who left him and got back to Sandzak successfully. That doesn't appear to be disputed by Tomasevich, and would appear to be consistent with at least a small part of your assertion, so I would be happy to include that much, but only as it relates to Djurisic. I don't see anything about what happened to them though. I note you are not willing to try to show the reliability of the source you raised initially. If you don't wish to engage in a discussion about its reliability, I will assume that you accept it is not reliable and I will henceforth ignore it. So far as I am concerned, I will add the material about the 200 Sandzak Chetniks of Vuk Kalaitovic travelling with Djurisic for some distance then returning to the Sandzak, and that's it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably overlooked my explanation thta on the page 453, note 68, Tomasevich stated that Mihajlović was actually explaining the retreat of 20,000 Serbian and Montenegrin Chetniks. Regarding reliability discussion, you probably overlooked my above question. "Do you think this source is less reliable than SUBNOR and press releases used in this article?"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't overlook jack. Firstly, that is not what Tomasevich uses in the text, as I pointed out. He says 12,000 Serbian Chetniks, not 20,000 Serbian and Montenegrin Chetniks, all he is pointing out with the fn is that DM said something in a telegram that varies from what Tomasevich has stated in the text of the page. Secondly, that's WP:OTHERSTUFF, you don't demonstrate the reliability of your source by comparison to another source, you explain who the author is, who the publisher is etc, per WP:RS. If that's all you have, I'm done here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. You did overlook. (Why did you call me "jack"? I politely asked you more than once to quit with name calling.)
 * Tomasevich pointed that DM also gives a figure of 12,000 Serbian Chetniks and explained that DM "actually talks about 20,000 Chetnik fighters from Serbia and Montenegro ".
 * If you believe that the source I presented is not reliable you should explain why, taking in consideration that it is proposed to be used for not particularly exceptional assertion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is short for "jack shit" which means "anything" in this context. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with "You overlooked X!" "No, I didn't" ad nauseum. I know quite well whether I overlooked something or not, and frankly, I couldn't give a tinker's whether you agree with me or not. As far as I am concerned, your view on what I do is immaterial. You don't comprehend the most basic elements of WP policy or how to read an academic book in English with footnoting, demonstrated by the fact that you appear to think it is ok to ignore what Tomasevich says in the text because the footnote serves your purposes better. Stop twisting sources to suit your POV. I'm sick to death of it, it is effectively your MO any time you aren't happy with something. Re: your source, you produced it, either explain why you think it is reliable or prepare to be ignored. It's not my job to defend your source. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned, I have already wasted enough of my time going around in obtuse circles with you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article contain wikilink to article about Moslem militia?
I added a wikilink to Moslem militia into the text about militia whose 1,600 members Đurišić's Chetniks killed in early 1943. Two editors were opposed and reverted me. They believe that my edit was WP:OR because of the 1975 work of Tomašević used to cite the text in question. Since Tomašević referred to this militia as "Muslim self-protection militia", not as Moslem militia he mentioned elsewhere in this work, they believe I failed to present evidence that this militia was actually the Moslem militia. Although I presented many sources that support my position, they remained on their position because they believe earlier work of Tomašević has advantage because Tomašević wrote it on English language, preferred on wikipedia.

Taking in consideration the significant importance of early 1943 actions of forces of Pavle Đurišić in which they killed around 1,600 members of militia and around 9,000 Muslim civilians:
 * 1) should the text of this article contain wikilink to article about this militia?
 * 2) is Moslem militia the article about this militia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes to both. I researched this issue and could not find any other militia that existed in this region at the beginning of 1943. On the contrary, I found more sources for my position. The list of sources is summarized below:
 * later work (1979) of Jozo Tomasevich (page 254) in which he uses exactly the same term as Dedijer/Miletić (članova tzv. Muslimanske milicije koju su pomagali Talijani)(members of so called Moslem militia supported by the Italians) - link) without self-protection.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose User:Antidiskriminator is engaging in WP:OR here. He was asked to prove that the unit for which he has created an article was the same one that is mentioned in Tomasevich 1975 (which is in English), but has failed to do so. There are insufficient details in any of the sources to show that this militia is the same one that User:Antidiskriminator has created an article about. The Sandžak is a region of about 8,403 square kilometres, with around eleven major towns and hundreds of villages. There was all sorts of nastiness going on there throughout the war, he can't seriously be trying to convince us that this was the only militia organised in that huge area in early 1943, when Chetniks were attacking Muslim villages. That in the days before power and telephones that every local militia was part of this one unit. He claims that he has been unable to identify any other Muslim militia in the Sandžak at the beginning of 1943. This claim is pure WP:OR, you don't prove a historical theory by claiming that you can't find any other information to disprove it, and in any case, that would be original research by a WP editor, not use of reliable secondary sources. It remains a theory until positive proof is obtained. His attempt to use a translation of Tomasevich's work (originally published by Stanford University in English in 1975) is highly dubious. We prefer English sources here, and it is not a "later work" as User:Antidiskriminator has claimed, it is a translation of the original published in English. This is an obvious attempted "work-around" that should be dismissed out of hand. The remaining sources, all in Serbo-Croat or Serbian, are mere snippets provided by User:Antidiskriminator that merely support the idea that the militia referred to by Tomasevich 1975 that was attacked by Đurišić's Chetniks is almost certainly the same militia as referred to by Dedijer and Miletic et al, not that it is the same militia for which User:Antidiskriminator has created an article. It should be noted that the vast majority of the sources used for the article User:Antidiskriminator has created are Yugoslav communist era sources (from 1945-1990 or so), which should only be used with care, given those writing them were subject to regime influences regarding what could or could not be written during the Tito-era. That is not to say they shouldn't be used, only that they should be used with care. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But Peacemaker, you are talking about Sandzak as being a vast region with many towns however, its a place with around 300.000 inhabitants and with a territory just a 3 times bigger than Luxembourg. There is one major urban center, Novi Pazar, and the Muslims there usually stay organised and loyal to their lider (liders, in case there are more fractions, but usually not more than 2). From what I understand, your concern is that there may have been numerous groups, and that they all being refered as Muslem Militia is just a concidence... hummm... Personally I doubt. FkpCascais (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fkp, I didn't suggest it was vast, I just gave its dimensions. I did not say it had many towns, I said how many. It is a very rugged region, unlike Luxembourg, little of which is mountainous. Your statements about the Muslims and what they "usually" do are unsupported by reliable sources. Your personal doubts are irrelevant, what is missing from Antidiskriminator's argument is the evidence that his Muslim militia article refers to the militia referred to by Tomasevich 1975, as I explained above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But all sources refer to Muslim militia in Sandzak, two even confirm with further infotmation about being backed by Italians. By now seems to be the same one allways refered. That is actually a small place with not many possibilities of having many major armed groups, even less more than one refered by same name. What is your concern, that the Muslim militia being refered in those sources is not the one backed by NDH? FkpCascais (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, please read my statement. "Muslim militia" is incredibly generic, any group of Muslims that took up arms could be called that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking that way, American Army could also be incredibly generic, any armed group in America could eventually be called American army. Its too much speculation. Honestly, I think Antidiskriminator is right on this one, the Muslim militia in Sandzak is one armed group. Its one specific name, for a specific ethnic group, in a small geographical region. FkpCascais (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your American Army example is totally unrelated. What is too much speculation is that they are the same. You've made your view clear. Thanks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually you have no sources backing your claims. All sources back up the view that until now we are talking about the same group. They all name it with a specific name "Muslim militia" (why not Muslim army, Sandzak rebells, etc.?) and they all talk about their confrontations with Chetniks, and 2 coincide talking how they are backed by Italians. You are making too much speculation with no basis by now. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I´ve been there, I know Sandzak. You already tried to make an argument how that area is big and many armed groups may have existed there. But no, that is not Australia, Sandzak is pretty much 3 valleys, all connected, and the characteristic there is that Muslims are organised and loyal to their lider. Its actually a very small territory. You saying that a nation of 200.000 people (probably their pop. then, as now they are 300.000) in a small territory, has numerous armed groups named same way, Muslim militia, with same allies, and fighting against same enemy, is waaaay too much speculation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Peacemaker67:
 * I basically agree with you about the sources. The point is that Tito died in 1980, not in 1990. The only source in this "Moslem militia wikilink dispute" written and published in Yugoslavia during Tito era is 1975 work of Tomašević you brought. Yes, it should be used with care, especially if there are no other sources to be presented for your position here.
 * every local detachment of Moslem militia was part of Moslem militia under Italian control in Sandžak in early 1943, as per sources I presented, also confirmed by the source you presented here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomasevich's 1975 work was published in the USA, by Stanford University Press, in English. Not Yugoslavia. It is one of the most positively reviewed sources on the Chetniks ever published. Neither your nor my sources say that every local detachment of "Moslem militia" in the Sandzak was part of your Moslem militia. None. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomasevich's 1975 work was published in Yugoslavia in 1979.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is not what you wrote. Anyone can read what you wrote. Tomasevich's 1975 work was not published in Yugoslavia during the Tito era. A translation of it was, and you have already proven elsewhere that it is not an exact translation, and you have attempted to use that difference as a "work-around" here and elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomasevich's 1975 work was published in Yugoslavia in 1979 as Yugoslav edition of 1975 work . Translated, of course. Here is what this translated work says about the translation of terminology:
 * Izdavač je jugoslavensko izdanje ove knjige priredio prema engleskom originalu »The Chetniks«, izdanje Stanford University Press 1975. Prilikom prevođenja na hrvatsko-srpski autor knjige mnogo je pomogao prevodiocu i uredništvu u preciziranju terminologije, te u provjeravanju citata i izvora. - The publisher prepared Yugoslav edition of this book according to English language original »The Chetniks«, Stanford University Press 1975. The author helped a lot to translator and editors with using precise terminology and checking the citations and sources.
 * A note to uninitiated editors: Jozo Tomasevich was able to help with using precise terminology because SerboCroatian language is his native language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still a translation of the original. Your attempts to pass it off as a "better" or "later" version of his work are really quite disturbing. Do you know that he checked that specific phrase of the translated version? The original text was written in English, published by a university press in the US. And this is en WP. If you are so keen on using Serbo-Croat sources instead of English ones, you are on the wrong WP. But the less said about that the better, eh? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know if he checked that specific phrase of the translated version. I replied to your question ending with eh at your talkpage because it is not related to this discussion (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A note to uninitiated editors: Jozo Tomasevich was able to help with using precise terminology because SerboCroatian language is his native language. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still a translation of the original. Your attempts to pass it off as a "better" or "later" version of his work are really quite disturbing. Do you know that he checked that specific phrase of the translated version? The original text was written in English, published by a university press in the US. And this is en WP. If you are so keen on using Serbo-Croat sources instead of English ones, you are on the wrong WP. But the less said about that the better, eh? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know if he checked that specific phrase of the translated version. I replied to your question ending with eh at your talkpage because it is not related to this discussion (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - as per what sources indicate (same name, same area, same enemy and same allies), by now seems quite clear we are talking about that armed group. FkpCascais (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's just make this really crystal clear for the uninitiated. Antidiskriminator's apparent thesis is that the Moslem militia covered by the article he created, was a single military organisation with five detachments. And that it was the same militia as the one mentioned briefly in Tomasevich 1975. Tomasevich refers to a self-protection militia, presumably in Bijelo Polje county (which was where the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered the Chetnik commander Đurišić to carry out "cleansing actions".) Antidiskriminator has listed a Bijelo Polje detachment in his article. But this is the central problem. Despite the lack of any information in the article in question that says that the militia was centrally controlled or commanded, Antidiskriminator lumps them all together and says they were one big unit called, wait for it, "Moslem militia". He lists five "detachments". What evidence is there that these were not independent town militias? Like the many independent Muslim militias formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Enver Redžić (2005) Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Second World War refers in a number of places to "Muslim militia organisations", "Muslim militias" and "Muslim militia units" formed in eastern Herzegovina and eastern Bosnia. Hoare (2014) Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War does the same, as does Greble (2011) Sarajevo 1941–1945: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Hitler's Europe. I could go on. Why would there be lots of local militias formed in Herzegovina and Bosnia, but for some reason in the Sandzak they formed one homogeneous unit? It is far more likely that this supposed "unit" was actually five separate town or county militias, with no central command and control. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that your position here contradicts to your position at Moslem militia:
 * Let me remind you about your comment which says that Moslem militia "appears to have been originally raised and primarily engaged in fighting and other activities in the Sandžak."
 * Based on this position you proposed renaming Moslem militia to:
 * Sandžak Muslim militia (World War II) (diff)
 * Sandžak Moslem militia (World War II) (diff)
 * Muslim Ustaša militia (diff)
 * "Moslem Legion" (with some sort of disambiguation) (diff)
 * "Sandžak Muslim militia" diff
 * If you really believed that detachments of Moslem militia in Sandžak were independent town militias you would suggest splitting instead of renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, they are not contradictory. My arguments there have been, from the very beginning, based on your completely policy-free choice of name for that article, which you still cling to, not acknowledging in any way that your chosen title is so generic as to be utterly pointless. My RM there was to merely get a sensible article title in place for what you purport the subject to be. But you make a good point. I should be RfCing it to be split up. Thanks for the suggestion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am glad you agree with my point. Will you please be so kind to re-introduce wikilink to Moslem militia to this article so I could withdraw this RfC. You are, of course, welcome to replace it with wikilink to article about its individual detachments attacked by Đurišić in early 1943 as soon as you reach consensus to split Moslem militia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I agree with. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker, if you look at article Sandžak you could see that Muslims there are concentrated in one half of the territory, in a pocket in and around Novi Pazar. So that is basically an even smaller territory of an already small territory. By now, I don´t see what is the point of complicating things and claiming "Muslim militia (in Sandzak)" is not clear. Also, you mentioned Bosnia, but in Bosnia you have a way larger territory and with many pockets where Muslims live, each having their own group, so that is why Muslims were not that centalized in Bosnia and often made numerous armed groups. However, in Sandzak there is only one pocket, and if there is a "Muslim militia" backed by Italians and fighting Chetniks, that is the Muslim militia. Even so, all yout doubts can be adressed in the article Antidisktriminator wants to link. I can´t see the reason why are you complicating something whch is obvious and clear. FkpCascais (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are engaging in OR, Fkp. None of what you have written is backed up by sources. But we've been here before. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per arguments set forth by Peacemaker67 above. --Potočnik (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Potočnik is one of two editors, besides Peacemaker67, who initially opposed to wikilinking the Moslem militia article and reverted me. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Further clarification: Potočnik is also one of the two editors that developed this article to FA over a considerable period of time, and has the Serbo-Croat language skills I lack. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Potočnik, will you please be so kind to clarify what exactly you agree with Peacemaker67 regarding addition of the Moslem militia wikilink? Do you also think that he "should be RfCing it to be split up"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Important note : User:Potočnik has been topic banned from making any edits on any page on Wikipedia related to Communism (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find Peacemakers arguments persuasive. Unless better evidence can be found that it is in fact the same militia I would be inclined to not wikilink to that article. AIR corn (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Important note : The article Moslem militia has not been split up. Instead it was renamed to Sandžak Muslim militia which I believe gives additional reason to add its wikilink into this article. Until consensus is reached to split it up to articles about standing and individual local auxiliary forces of Moslem militia in Sandžak.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: The Muslim militia in Sandžak (Muslimanska milicija) is undoubtedly one and the same militia, clearly mentioned in the above sources.--Z oupan 03:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I believe the wikilink should be left out since there is controversy as to whether or not that specific militia is applicable. A compromise would be to add the Moslem militia article to a See Also list and let the reader make the connection if they so desire.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree the Muslim militia in Sandžak (Muslimanska milicija) is same militia as mentioned in above sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The military unit which struggled against forces of Đurišić in early 1943 was commanded by Ćazim Sijarić, a commander of detachment of Sandžak Muslim militia in Bijelo Polje. (. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet more OR. The statement at the beginning of the above comment is not fully supported by the translated quote. nowhere in the quote does it say that Cazim Sijaric was the commander of detachment (sic) of Sandzak Muslim militia". It says he commanded a unit in Bijelo Polje, not that he commanded a detachment of the Sandzak Muslim militia. The relationship between the various units of Muslim militia in the Sandzak has not been proven by reliable sources, which is why this link is inappropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There are plenty of sources that Ćazim Sijarić was commander of Muslim militia. (i.e. Your position  is not constructive here. Imagine how it would look if somebody would insist that every sentence cited in this article should mention that it refers to Pavle Đurišić who was a commander of Lim-Sandžak Chetnik units, because there was maybe some other Pavle Đurišić in Montenegrin Chetniks.
 * The article about Sandžak Muslim militia covers all units of Muslim militia in Sandžak. That is why you proposed its renaming to Sandžak Muslim militia. You had an idea to split this article ("I should be RfCing it to be split up. ") but you gave it up. Either initiate procedure to split Sandžak Muslim militia or stop insisting that its detachments are not covered with Sandžak Muslim militia article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just pointless. You either misrepresent my comments on purpose or you just don't comprehend them. You created an article that purports to be about one big Muslim militia unit in the Sandzak. I didn't. I say there were a number of militias in the Sandzak. This Sijaric guy commanded one of them. But that does not mean your fictional big Muslim militia unit should be linked here, because you haven't shown it was one big unit, despite the fact you have created an article that gives that impression. The idea is entirely unsupported. I am not wasting my time further with this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Đurišić wanted Chetniks to attack Germans
Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator has not edited the article to add this information

According to "The Chetniks" (Jozo Tomasevich - 1975, page 433 and 434) Germans intercepted some Chetnik radio messages in October 1944 so they knew that Lukačević and Đurišić wanted Chetniks to attack Germans.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd best add it then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Đurišić established Lim-Sandžak Chetnik Detachment
Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator has not edited the article to add this information

According to Pajović (p. 42) Đurišić actually established Lim-Sandžak Chetnik Detachment.


 * "Prema sporazumu Pirzio Biroli - Đukanović, Pavle Đurišić je formirao Limsko-Sandžački leteći odred,..." [According to agreement Pirzio Biroli - Đukanović, Pavle Đurišić established Lim-Sandžak flying detachment....]

I think that Đurišić establishing this important military unit should be added to the text of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd better add it then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaining for being forced to play the "black" role of open collaborator of occupying forces
The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) explains that, when Lukačević returned from his trip to London in May 1944, he was appointed to his old position of the commander of Chetnik forces in Stari Ras (part of Sandžak) and also as commander of illegal Chetnik forces in Sandžak and Montenegro. This made Đurišić angry. Đurišić was promised that he will remain commander of both illegal and legalized Chetnik forces. The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) says that after illegal Chetnik forces were given to Lukačević, Đurišić was angry because he had to play the "black" role of open collaborator of occupying forces. He wrote official complaint to Mihailović. After a month Mihailović again appointed Đurišić for a commander of both legalized and illegal Chetnik forces in Sandžak, Boka and Montenegro.

The article does not mention: I propose to add it to the article, unless there is some particular reason not to. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) this important change in Đurišić's position,
 * 2) his reaction to it and complaint because he had to play the "black" role of open collaborator of occupying forces and
 * 3) return of his previous position.

SOE made combination to appoint Đurišić as commander of all Chetniks
Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator has not edited the article to add this information

The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 11) explains that SOE made combination to appoint Đurišić as a commander of all Chetnik forces instead of Mihailović. I apologize if I am wrong, but I can't see this important information in the text of the article, so I propose to add it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

15 October appointment
Pajović (page 25) explains that on 15 October 1941 Mihailović appointed Đurišić as a commander of Chetnik forces for the following districts: and two municipalities: The article does not mention this, but mentions only later (December 1941) appointment. I propose to add information about October appointment to the text of the article, unless there are some specific reasons not to do it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Berane
 * 2) Andrijevica
 * 3) Kolašin
 * 4) Bijelo Polje
 * 5) Pljevlja and
 * 6) Prijepolje
 * 1) Barska
 * 2) Buđevo
 * Pajovic is fine with me as a source, you can go right ahead as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more complex than I initially thought and needs more detailed explanation. I will get back to this point shortly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

JUSP as source for the death place and year of birth
I pointed to Jasenovac as death place and both 1907 and 1909 used as birth years in this discussions:
 * Jasenovac death place - discussion
 * Both 1907 and 1909 as year of birth - discussion

At those discussions I proposed to use JUSP (website of Jasenovac Memorial Site) to cite assertion about Jasenovac as death place and to add 1907 as year of birth besides 1909 also based on JUSP as source. My proposal to use JUSP as source was swiftly rejected by Peacemaker67 with justification that JUSP is tertiary/primary source.

Now Peacemaker67 added himself Jasenovac death place assertion based on JUSP (diff) and 1907 as year of Đurišićs birth based on JUSP (diff).

, is there any productive reason for this kind of contradictory actions? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal from Montenegro and destruction

 * 1) I object to the title. Destruction of what? Pavle Đurišić?
 * 2) "With the fall of Grahovo, the Partisans from Herzegovina had a way into Montenegro and Đurišić had to withdraw.[86] In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces left, part of the way together, with the Germans going to Austria and Đurišić's forces to northeastern Bosnia to join Mihailović.[64]" This part relies on Pavlowitch's and Tomasevic's paragraphs. But, it covers some war operations, and misrepresents them. Neither of them was an expert in that area. In facts, on the day of the fall of Grahovo (21 October), two thirds of Montenegro has been already held by Partisans, including Nikšić, Žabljak, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Mojkovac, Kolašin, Berane… And Germans weren’t “Going to Austria” :D .  It was in fact German 21st Mountain Corps, blocked in Montenegro, with an order to break through and connect with 5th SS Corps in Mostar. Grahovo was an important point on that road. After the failure of the Mostar plan, on 25th November Army Group E started new operation for unblocking of 21st Corps, with 91st Corps attacking from Prijepolje southwards, and 21st Corps attacking northwards, both towards Kolašin. Their goal was not reaching Austria. Parts of the Corps (297th Division) were used for counter-attack on Drava in February and March 1945, and parts for defence of Sarajevo. In all operations of 21th Corps in Montenegro, Đurišić's četniks were fully integrated into German action.
 * Unfortunatelly, military operations in Yugoslavia aren't well covered in literature on English language. Nevertheles, we shouldn’t allow ourselves ridiculous representations of events. In such cases involving military operations, I suggest consulting available good Serbo-croatian literature, and adjustment of the text accordingly.--Gorran (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * death works for me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * sounds scary--Gorran (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerning these two sentences quoted earlier: "With the fall of Grahovo, the Partisans from Herzegovina had a way into Montenegro and Đurišić had to withdraw.[86] In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces left, part of the way together, with the Germans going to Austria and Đurišić's forces to northeastern Bosnia to join Mihailović.[64]" - this is what fits the original historical circumstances, and this is, more or less, my suggestion for replacement:
 * Since Germans decided to evacuate Montenegro, Đurišić had no other options than to leave. After Germans in mid-December, with the assistance of Đurišić's forces, had fought their way out of Partisan blockade, they marched together over Kolašin to the north. German units established the connection with other parts of Army Group E, while Đurišić's forces marched to east Bosnia to meet Mihailović's group.--Gorran (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source for it, that certainly explains it a lot better. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Some minor objections
"Đurišić soon recaptured Kolašin" sounds like he had held it before, but he hadn't - Italians had.
 * Good point, the Italians withdrew in December/January and the Partisans took over. Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"In early March 1942, Đurišić arranged one of the first collaboration agreements between the Italians and the Chetniks" - maybe vague enough, but, for example, so-called Otrić-agreement was in September 1941, and Mihailović's representative Major Boško Todorović signed an agreement with Italians in Višegrad on 11 November 1941. By March 1942 almost all regions were covered with agreements.--Gorran (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should say "In early March 1942, Đurišić arranged one of the first collaboration agreements between the Italians and the Chetniks in Montenegro"? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There were some groups in Montenegro in full collaboration as early as in October 1941. The main event that ignited open Partisan-Četnik hostilities happened in late December / early January, and it was about Italians: Partisans demanded from nationalists to allow, and not to interfere with, the planned attack on Italians in Kolašin, and nationalists (Leko Lalić, Đorđije Lašić) vigorously declined. Strong connections between nationalist groups and Italians existed much earlier, and I suspect that the March agreement maybe was more about Italians recognising Đurišić as a leader, and about regulating some technical details, than about Đurišić's consenting to collaborate. I think it would be much safer, and more accurate, to avoid the comparison in time completely.--Gorran (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you point to a reliable source for all that? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Source misinterpretation
With this edit diff Peacemaker67 misinterpreted the source and added Sabrina Ramet although her work did not support the cited assertion. Because without Ramet, the assertion does not stand in its current form, especially its attribution to Mihailović part:

''
 * ''Historians Lucien Karchmar, Stevan K. Pavlowitch and Noel Malcolm believe that the document was a forgery made by Đurišić after he failed to reach Mihailović, who, because German forces in Serbia had mounted an operation targeting Mihailović's forces, had been driven out of Ravna Gora. In contrast, historians Matteo J. Milazzo, Jozo Tomasevich and Sabrina P. Ramet consider the document to be authentic, and Millazzo and Tomasevich attribute the instructions to Mihailović.

Peacemaker67 first put more recent authors and their works (of 1987, 1994 and 2007) who believe Đurišić forged this document and then he put 1975 works of Millazzo and Tomasevich who attribute the instructions to Mihailović. The consequence is misleading the readers to believe that Milazzo and Tomasevich refuted position of more recent works, while it was the opposite. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't misinterpret Ramet, I wasn't specific enough with the footnotes. And that is the order it was presented in the first place. Are you saying you think it should be presented the other way around for chronological reasons? I don't think it matters, but I'm happy with it either way. BTW, your manner of presenting your "points" is consistently very high-handed. I'm sure you wouldn't be doing it on purpose, so I assume it is because your English expression isn't very good. Either way, it would be good if you would tone it down, it would make for much more pleasant interaction. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The diff I presented proves that you did misinterpret Ramet. That is why you were unable to present the quote I requested but decided to change the assertion (diff) and remove my quote request. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Terzić, 2004.--Gorran (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gorran. Ad, the words misrepresent and misinterpret have different meanings. What I did was inadvertently and marginally misrepresent Ramet when I first wrote this article more than two years ago by lumping her citation together with those of Milazzo and Tomasevich. She does not ascribe the instructions to DM by name, she says "in a Chetnik directive issued on 20th December 1941...". Now as far as I am concerned, it is WP:BLUE that the commander of the Chetniks decided what directives were issued, but because Ramet does not use DM's name, I moved the citation to ensure that you would have no basis for your usual nit-picking about mouseshit. Alas, you continue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I again caught you red handed. Your fallacies, speculations about my language skills and uncivil reply can not hide why did you misinterpreted the source. To mislead readers to believe that findings of recent scholarship are refuted by works written 39 years ago. Its not about chronology. Its about your tendentious editing which is the main issue of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is absolute, unmitigated bullshit. This is the first time you have ever raised the issue of chronology, and I have already said I don't care, and don't believe it is important. In fact, Terzic is now newer than all but one of the sources used there, and your point (if there was one) is essentially moot. Thanks, Gorran. If you do believe it is important, edit the article. If not, then don't. But stop carrying on like a pork chop about inconsequential crap. Instead of creating pages of circular nonsense about minor issues, wasting everyone's time while you have the last word on everything, why don't you actually edit the article, especially where it is clear no-one has any issue with the information being added? Unless improving the article isn't your aim here? Nah, that couldn't be right, especially not after your rabbiting on about how much you've improved it, even though you have done 2/10ths of bugger all on the article itself. I'm not your editing slave. I am re-instating my practice to not respond to you on any issue unless you actually edit (not tag) the article. That goes for Lukacevic as well, seeing you appear to have appointed yourself as his white knight as well. Given your past lack of action, I don't expect we'll be interacting much. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The tag at the top of this page says: "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article: Peacemaker67".
 * I proved that you misinterpreted the sources to advance certain POV and I am concerned that there are more of your misinterpretations.
 * Somebody who don't assume good faith (not me, of course) could see your WP:DIVA rant above as your attempt to sabotage discovery of your other misinterpretations.
 * I think that those are reasons why you should take more productive and cooperative stance here. The choice is yours. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that those are reasons why you should take more productive and cooperative stance here. The choice is yours. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mihailović ordered his murder?
The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 11) explains that Mihailović ordered murder of Đurišić in the Spring of 1945. I apologize if I am wrong, but I can't see this important information in the text of the article, so I propose to add it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to this passage? Draža Mihailović bira ga za suradnika još u listopadu 1941. i proglašuje ga jednim od svojih najhrabrijih i najsposobnijih komandanata, što je zaista i bio. Tri puta ga unapređuje, nekoliko puta odlikuje, a u proljeće 1945. organizira na njega atentat i konačno se s njim razilazi. It is unclear to me, I assume unapređuje means promoted (in rank), but what does nekoliko puta odlikuje mean? Why are there full stops after 1941 and 1945? Can you translate it in full please? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you stated more than once that I should not use English language sources because of my language skills, while you don't refrain from using Serbo-Croatian sources although you don't know the language. For example this edit of yours (diff) is based on the literal translation of the source. The author wanted to emphasize his point of view which is that uprising was organized by the communists. The text you added could mislead the readers that Đurišić was subordinated to the communists. Please revert yourself.
 * "Draža Mihailović chose him for his associate in October 1941 and proclaimed him as one of his bravest and most capable commanders, what he really was. He promoted him three times, awarded him several times, and in the Spring of 1945 he organized his assassination and finally broke up with him."
 * Yes, unapređuje means promoted (in rank). nekoliko puta odlikuje means "awards him several times".
 * Points behind year are because the source is on Croatian language. According to Croatian language orthography the full stop is written behind the number of the year if it is written in Arab figures.
 * All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are interested in it. I'm happy for you to provide a better translation of the passage you have challenged, but perhaps I should go elsewhere for assistance with translations when I don't quite understand? I have never said you shouldn't use English sources, what I have said is that you sometimes don't comprehend the meaning. As I understand it, that is what you are saying about my interpretation of the passage you have challenged. You don't ask anyone for assistance when you clearly don't understand a passage in English, yet when I ask you because I freely admit I don't understand a passage in Croatian, you can't help but have a crack at me. You constantly espouse AGF, but don't actually do it yourself. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw man. The point of my comment were your double standards regarding language skills, not the language of sources.
 * I provided you translations you asked for. I also gave you additional explanations you requested. And I pointed to your literal translation of the source. All based on AGF. I will continue to AGF despite your comments. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your constant erroneous use of "straw man" and other feeble attempts to deploy theoretical constructs of argumentation just show how little of the finer points of English you actually do understand. You draw them like a sword, and brandish them like you understand what they mean. There are no double standards on display here other than yours. You accused me of saying something I have never said, which is a misrepresentation at best, or an attempt to deceive the casual reader at worst. There is certainly no evidence of AGF. You mouth the words, and employ faux politeness, but your underlying assumptions are glaringly obvious. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "feeble attempts to deploy theoretical constructs of argumentation"? I admit that my language skills are not sufficient to argue with you. The point of this discussion is murder of Đurišić ordered by Mihailović. If you want to complain to my conduct, please use more appropriate pages. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems fine, although it would be good to know if there is more detail about it later in the book. I mean, in what context did DM try to have him killed? I don't recall ever coming across it before. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Work of Pajović is not an exceptional source, while this is exceptional claim. Until more sources are presented to support this assertion it should be added to the text of the article with attribution to Pajović. All the best and thank you. Of course same is valid for your addition of Đurišić fighting under communist flag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Contradictory exceptional assertion about Đurišić fighting under communist flag is removed with this edit. ✅--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

He travelled to Serbia in late December 1941 and early January 1942?
The text of the article says that Đurišić "travelled to Serbia in late December 1941 and early January 1942 to meet with Mihailović, and returned with detailed instructions.....". The source used to support this assertion (Tomasevich, page 170) does not mention period "late December 1941 and early January 1942". The source discuss Đurišić travel to Serbia on the page 209 and says:


 * "... the nationalist groups in Montenegro toward the end of November dispatched Major Đurišić to Serbia"

I propose to replace late December 1941/early January 1942 with end of November, and to reference page number 209.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that it was Peacemaker67 who added "early January" part of the above assertion regarding Đurišić's trip connected with DM instructions and added Tomasevich, page 170 as a source (diff). Will you please be so kind to clarify what is the source for this "early January" assertion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * will you please be so kind to provide requested quotation for the above "early January assertion"? Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. I found a source (Pajović, 1977 work, page 161 "Са Михаиловићевим упутствима Павле Ђуришић се 30. децембра 1941. вратио у Црну Гору") which says that Đurišić returned to Montenegro on 30 December 1941, not in early January as you wrote. That is why I am concerned that you misinterpreted the source so your reply is necessary to clarify this. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What about another conference?
Despite raising this issue, User:Antidiskriminator has not edited the article to add this information

The only conference this article mentions is the one held in Šahovići. One full paragraph is dedicated to it. I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I think that another conference, whose resolutions did not express extremism and intolerance, is somehow overlooked. The conference of the military commanders of LSCD held in Kolašin on 15 September 1942.

A book of Pajović (1977, page 255, already used in this article) describes details about this conference. It was a conference of military officers of Lim Sandžak Detachment. Đurišić attended the conference for which he prepared an agenda based on Mihailovićs instructions. In this agenda Đurišić emphasized that "the only law and order and the only policy and government is Chetnik organization" (quotation marks by Pajović).

This conference was important basis for reorganization of Chetnik units in Montenegro. After this conference the Chetnik commanders organized similar conferences with officers subordinated to them and undertook planned measures. I propose to add information about this conference also.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Đurišić's successor after capture of Chetniks in Case Black operation
When many Chetniks were captured in the initial phase of the Case Black, together with Pavle Đurišić, Lukačević was his successor as commander of the Lim-Sandzak Chetnik Detachment. He gathered remaining Chetniks in Sandžak and came to Berane on 14 July 1943. Here is the source:
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Go ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I read many sources about Chetniks and Djurisic in the last couple of years, the text of the article mislead me regarding the relations between Chetniks and Italians. I thought that they collaborated happily ever after (at least till Italy's capitulation) but this is far from what actually happened. Pajović (1977 work, page 361) gives more details about this. After Đurišić was captured by the Germans, the Italians disarmed majority of Chetniks in Montenegro, captured and interned to prison in Italy big number of Chetnik commanders, including many from the staff of LSCD. Initially, Lašić gathered scattered groups of Chetniks on the territory that was under Djurisić's control. Lasic and Djurisic were in conflict earlier (this needs clarification) and Djurisic's former associates did not trust Lasic, especially after one of former Djursic's deputies (Veskovic) died under mysterious conditions on the return from the meeting with Lasic. With approval of Rudolf Perhinek, envoy of the supreme command, they recreated Chetnik organisation and new staff of LSCD and asked from Mihailović to appoint Lukačević as their commander. (I can't believe that the text of the article does not even mention Perhinek). In the mid of June Mihailovic appointed Lukacevic as Djurisic's sucessor and instructed him to instruct all Chetnik commanders not to cooperate with Axis forces.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramet's opinion about the authenticity of the Chetnik document
in the opinion of User:Antidiskriminator Because of the above episode with Peacemaker67's misinterpretation of Ramet's work I am concerned if her work is properly interpreted in the below assertion:


 * In contrast, historians Matteo J. Milazzo, Jozo Tomasevich, Sabrina P. Ramet and Milan Terzić consider the document to be authentic.

, will you please be so kind to present a quote from Ramet's work, page 145, which directly supports the above presented Ramet's opinion about the authenticity of the Chetnik document?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To avoid to acknowledge source misinterpretation reworded the text of the article diff. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is, of course, no valid reason to point to the sources that don't even argue authenticity of this Chetnik document, except to mislead the readers that they somehow do argue that instructions are authentic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC) ❌

Đurišić's attempts to connect with Allies
The whole chapter of Pajović's work of 1977, pages 511-515) is dedicated to Đurišić's attempts to connect with Allies since early 1944. There are plenty of other sources about this, but somehow this article does not mention this attemps.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

November 1943 return to Montenegro (or Sandžak?) and sent by DM to take over from Lukačević and established HQ in Prijepolje
Pajovic, 1977 work, pages 462 and 463, explains that in November 1943 Djurisic returned to Sandžak. The text of the article says Montenegro. Taking in consideration that: it is not very likely that Djurisic returned to Montenegrin part of Sandžak, so it might be good to double check this November 1943 "return to Montenegro assertion" and to add information that Djurisic actually took over command over Lukacevic's Chetniks in November 1943 and that his headquarter was in Prijepolje. It is also necessary to add that PD reported to DM after he left Belgrade in November 1943 and that DM sent him to Sandzak to Lukacevic (Pajovic p. 463). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) at that time Chetniks were almost destroyed in Montenegro,
 * 2) that in November (temporarily) and in December (for longer time) 1943 Djurisic took over command over Ras Chetnik detachment from Lukačević who left with Bailey to England
 * 3) that Pajovic explicitly says that Djurisic's headquarter was in Prijepolje (part of Sandzak in Serbia) when he took over the command of Stari Ras Chetnik Detachment for a longer time

Promotion to Lieutenant Colonel
Pajovic (1977, page 472) explains that King Peter promoted PD to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, based on the proposal of DM, shortly before Nedic promoted PD to the same rank. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)