Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive15

Final discussion on "Legacy" section

 * Well anyway, I made a few changes to the section. I basically removed the implication that Draža was considered a hero outside Yugoslavia, and considering that the sources on that issue are ALL non-Yugoslav, I certainly hope that at least there we will not be forced into another pointless debate. I expect we will nevertheless find some bone to pick. Please review the section and discuss any opposed wording above. Good to have you back. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Draza was considered a hero outside Yugoslavia, not by all, but by some (majority, I beleave). Saying hero is probably exagerated (not in all cases), but the views outside Yugoslavia about him were much more favorable than negative, and the negativity on him was mainly archived later, with the influence of Tito policies, and/or other anti-Chetnik oriented movements. You still insist in the wrong suposition that the positive image of him was only in the eyes of "crazy" Serbian nationalists which is completely wrong mostly because he was forbiten even to be mentioned in Serbia for decades, so it was mainly outside Serbia, and mostly among the allies that Mihailovic good reputation was mantained. FkpCascais (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources? -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources? You can perfectly see that most works are neutral about him, Croatian authors are very negative, and you have authors, like Allies betrayed that glorify him... And some sentencies that were inserted in legacy, again speaking only that the Tito views on him were challenged ONLY in Serbia... The Montenegrin public, Serbs from Bosnia, in Macedonia, as well followed the same tendencies, and by that, that is more than half of Yugoslavia. If we were real, we could say that the only ones that keep the Tito perspective are only Croatians and Bosniaks, mostly because of their anti-Serbian element. You can even see as exemple the surprise that JJG, a Frenchman, had when saw the Tito perspective about Mihailovic because he had a positive view on him, and from what I understood, he didn´t read any Serbian literature, it was all foreign (non-Yugoslav). Do you have sources claiming that he was rehabilitated in Serbia only, and in the rest of the world he is regarded same way as Tito describes him? FkpCascais (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it would be helpfull if the changes that direktor talks could be showed in a diff... FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just repeat Nuujin here. Sources, Fkp?
 * I don't think we're going to play this game. As always, you need sources directly challenging and opposing those views before you can declare them "opposed by the majority" outside Yugoslavia (as is the case with any positive assertion by the laws of logic). I do not think sources that don't talk about the issue are about to be proclaimed as supporting your views. Also as usual, I refuse categorically to discuss your "beliefs" and opinions here. Permit me also to once again ignore your recurrent accusations of ethnic bias.


 * You are right about one thing, Serbs outside Serbia proper should be mentioned as well (before you involve Montenegrins, however, or anyone else, you will need very good sources). I will make a comment on your very strange "more than half of Yugoslavia" statement :D. Even if we make the incredibly wild leap of faith that all Serbs and Montenegrins now suddenly supported the Chetniks and Draža, together they made-up 38.9% of Yugoslavia, assuming they were all now nationalist Chetnik-supporters :). On the other hand, Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenes, and Albanians (virtually none of whom ever supported the Chetniks, quite the contrary) together make-up 44.9% of the populace. The point is: lets stop with the statements like "the majoroty of the world/Yugoslavs thought Draža was a hero", etc...


 * Quite predictably, Fkp, my reply to you is once again: You have no sources. You are contradicted by sources. Get sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop acusing me of ethnic bias (where did I express it? One thing is ethnic bias, another are facts), because is very much you, that troughout this entire participation of yours in this area of WP are doing everything in a completelly ethnically biased manner against Serbs and Chetniks. Anyway, isn´t strange that the ones mostly supporting the condemnation of Mihailovic are only Croatians, and btw, you are Croatian? Also, please avoid making the phalse statement that considering Mihailovic a resistance leader is exclusive of "nationalists". That is what you try to push here a long time now, and it´s completely phalse. Can you please provide me (I already asked before) a diff with the changes you made, so it becomes easier for me to see it clear. Please. Thank you. P.S.:Because of respect towards Sunray, we should remove our mutual acusations of ethnic bias, but since you did it first, you should do it first, and I´ll follow you if you do. FkpCascais (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Resumingly, you are wrong in wanting to show that all people that opose to the completely biased description that Tito regime made on Mihailovic are nationalists. That is funny. You are the one missing sources. Nobody, beside Tito Yugoslavia, ever shared Tito views on Mihailovic. You are the one that doesn´t have sources that say that Tito views on the issue are anywhere considered right... We should remind that we have here the most acusational sources that you found, and even they are very carefull about it, and all are very far from the Tito views on it (traitor, notable collaborator...), and the only one that comes close, is from Croatia, Tomasevic. Facts. P.S.: Slovenians don´t share Tito´s view on the subject. Why did you include them among Croatians, Bosnikas and Albanians? FkpCascais (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion is getting out of hand, refocusing:
 * Its darned simple, Fkp: 1) You do not get to claim that (quote) "Draža Mihailović was considered a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia" without sources. And this exactly is the view you "weaved" into the article. 2) You do not get to proclaim other sources as supporting that view simply because they have nothing to say on the issue of Mihailović being "hailed as a hero" or whatnot. Find sources.
 * As for Yugoslavia: Mihailović, as a radical Serbian nationalist, is very exclusively a Serbian hero. Claiming that others such as Montenegrins or Slovenes (LoL :) also view him as a "hero" since the 1980s is going to require proper sources and lots of them. In short: find sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Do you read my posts? Even I said that the word "hero" is exagerated... I just asked you to provide diffs for your changes, as minor as they are, so they are presented in a more simple way, and debated, if needed. I said already please once... FkpCascais (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what you can do: copy the source from "Legacy section - revised", paste it over the source of the old Legacy section above, then click "Show changes" (don't save, though). Works? It should work fine. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, would you be able to show your changes in future? It is time-consuming to have to do a line by line comparison between the two versions. Your changes appear to be consistent with what has been agreed upon here and contained in sources. If there are any points of disagreement, would participants please point out specifics and refer to sources? Sunray (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, apologies. My edits were basically minor, the only "controversial" edits being the rewriting of those parts of the text I discovered sported Fkp's view that "Draža Mihailović was considered a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia". Imho I do not think there's really much to debate on the rewriting of such themes. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fkp's view that "Draža Mihailović was considered a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia" (???), don´t purposly exagerate other users words to make a point. FkpCascais (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I quote: "Wrong. Draza was considered a hero outside Yugoslavia, not by all, but by some (majority, I beleave)." . What I stated was that "in your view Draža Mihailović was considered a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia". I think its pretty obvious I was not exaggerating in the slightest nor twisting any of your words. I am glad to see you know how to "withdraw from an untenable position" when need be, as it were, but unfortunately this is only in polemics. :)) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any unresolved objections to Direktor's additions to the "Legacy" section. Therefore, I propose to add them and record that section as complete. In the absence of further comments on the "Early life and military career" section as well, shall we then add these sections to the main article? I will flash up a couple more sections for review. Call me Pollyanna, but I am feeling good about the way this is going. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pollyanna, sounds fine to me. (Should we store the completed sections in a subpage? I would like to redo the references as notes/references (as I did in the revisions I proposed long ago), so that we can have one reference per source, and have the footnotes point to the particular page number, and that would be easier if it were in a subpage. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a remark, I feel that the basketball player section is completely unecessary (stupidity, the word). It highlights how Croats treat Mihailovic same way other nations do about Hitler... (It doesn´t really say Croats, it doesn´t really say "who"). That happend in only one nation, and it can maximally show the "stupidity" and radicalism of the organisers ofd the basket event... Its completely unencyclopedic, ponctual half century after Mihailovic sports (no connection to his life) event... FkpCascais (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with the source, or the representation of the source? -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind... It shows a specific feeling that is cultivated towards him specifically in Croatia... FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "In Croatia is seen as...stupidity" By who? General public? Ministry of Interior? ... It just sounds... I don´t know...FkpCascais (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cultivated? Do you have a source for that claim? And where do you get the quote "In Croatia is seen as...stupidity"? I do not believe that is in the text of the proposed section. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly think its a valid example showing the nationalist climate towards this person in some parts of ex-Yugoslavia, with respect to the unscientific "rehabilitation" in Serbia. Educational, sourced, and relevant in its context. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pollyanna? After the movie & book? Well, optimism is never a bad thing in my opinion. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nuujinn, you seriously want me to source my comments here? "Cultivated", yes, when a Ministry of Interior does something like that, I (or anybody) can perfectly say that. Or, are you saying nothing regarding Mihailovic is happening in Croatia... why that happend than? lol P.S.: The quote is in the edited version, I doubt I need to explain what (...) means. FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But of course. Disagreeing with the view on Draža Mihailović in Serbia can only be attributed to (quote) "stupidity". :) Tattooing Mihailović all over oneself is obviously a mark of supreme intelligence, not to mention distinctly indicative of the intellectual value of such views... --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sunray, I did these changes . Did I edited thyem in the right place? FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I´ll be also very glad to see the mediation going on, because the extremely unfavourable version has been imposedly in place for almost an entire year already... I think is clear the current version (in place on the article) is desprestigious for the WP project. FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Predictable. The edits are so completely biased its almost beyond discussion. Draža Mihailović, as a Serb nationalist, was/is a Serb radical nationalist icon, if you wish to suggest that people of other nationalities were engaged in his rehabilitation of the late 1980s and early 90s - you will need ample sources. (It is, of course, impossible to find anything of the sort. Can you imagine a French ultra-nationalist icon being hailed as some sort of (quote) "hero" in say Germany, for example.)


 * His "rehabilitation" was accepted in Serb-populated areas of Yugoslavia (which includes: 1. Serbia proper, 2. Serbs in Bosnia, and 3. Serbs in Croatia), but it was actually done in SR Serbia proper. I.e. he was actively rehabilitated by officials and scholars in Milošević's Serbia proper: this is where it started, this is where the rehabilitation took place, and this is where it was institutionalized. Later (within a year or so, around 1989/1990) this spread to Serbs in SR Croatia and SR Bosnia and Herzegovina.


 * In short: 1) please do not try to insinuate that any non-Serbs accepted or were engaged in the "rehabilitation" of Draža Mihailović during the 1980s/90s. 2) Do not try to insinuate that Mihailović was/is considered to have engaged in collaboration only in Yugoslavia. You do not have sources. These are your opinions. Both concepts are completely wrong, biased and (thus) unacceptable for inclusion. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Rehabilitation" was only done inside Yugoslavia, because it was there the only place that needed "rehabilitating" him... Your assumption that Mihailovic is regarded as resistence leader only by Serbs is completely wrong and propagandistic. It´s unprecise to specify nationalities. Specification however can be done on the contrary, Croatia and Bosnia are the only official entities keeping the push of the "war criminal" and such acusations, clearly alone in that path... FkpCascais (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I just saw now that your (un)behavior goes as far as edit-warring here!!! Terrible... FkpCascais (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I may have been overly optimistic. Direktor made some 11th hour changes to the "Legacy" section. FkpCascais made some further edits of those changes and Direktor reverted them. So what now? I would like each of you to determine the best possible resolution. Please do not over-react. I don't see these changes as major. Direktor, Fkp: Here are the options: Let me know which you prefer. I need you both to agree. Sunray (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) One or both of you suggest a compromise in wording.
 * 2) A third party (e.g., Nuujinn, me) reviews the changes and makes a determination.


 * I didn't touch "Legacy section - revised" apart from reverting Fkp's latest additions, the ones he provided a diff for . It seemed to me at that point that after the entire above discussion, which served exclusively to explain why that edit was unsupported in any sources whatsoever, Fkp simply did what he felt regardless of any arguments and posts.


 * Fkp, you have no sources supporting such concepts, thus:
 * you cannot rewrite the text promoting the your personal idea that non-Serbs accepted or were engaged in the "rehabilitation" of Draža Mihailović during the 1980s/90s.
 * you cannot rewrite the text promoting your own personal concept that Mihailović was/is considered to have engaged in collaboration only in Yugoslavia, i.e. that he was "regarded as a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia".


 * Sunray, everyone, I feel we should take a firm stand right here and now against this sort of behavior - or else we're all going to have grandkids by the time this is over. Entering or promoting biased personal concepts into the proposed article text without any sources whatsoever is not the way to go. We could theoretically debate such fake "issues" 'till kingdom come. Unsourced personal ideas should be completely disregarded immediately, and are not something to waste whole weeks on. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 06:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My request was to pick one of the two options I offered. Would you be willing to do that now? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to compromise with an unsourced point of view. I'm sure you see what I'm trying to say? If it were necessary then Wikipedia text would, by requirement, have to be influenced by personal views. I.e. if there are no sources to support a view - it should be disregarded, not included into the text via "compromise". Another error would be to debate such irrelevant concepts endlessly, desiring to bring all sides into perfect agreement.
 * This is, I believe, directly derived from one of the most basic and foundational Wikipedia policies, WP:V: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.


 * In short: I am not prepared to compromise in any way with views that have no backing in sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The you are, by default, picking the second option. I will go through the changes and give my opinion on each. Sunray (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are authors - contemporary ones - who are hostile to Mihailovic, and others who glorify him. I don't see what is controversial about this. The fact that he is a controversial character should not be controversial per se : we are dealing with a character about whom there is no definite consensus. As for the perception of him during WWII, the fact that he was glorified for a time as a hero by Allied propaganda is, I think, well established.

If the controversy is about FkpCascais's edits, they do not seem problematic to me. I can testify that the first thing I ever heard about Mihailovic was a French documentary which mentioned him as some sort of unsung hero, and that was in the late 1980s, I think. Mentions of Mihailovic's fate as "unfair" were very frequent in French historical literature at least since the 1980s, and most certainly way before that. David Martin's "Ally betrayed" (which I have not read, but I've read a review describing it as a vigorous defense of Mihailovic) was published in 1946, some months after DM's death. Pro-DM books have been existing for decades, and they have certainly been published outside Serbia, including by non-Serbian authors : Roberts (certainly no fan of Mihailovic, though no foe either) writes quite eloquently, at the beginning of his 1973 book, about the bewildering, conflicting literature about Mihailovic, the Chetniks, Tito, etc.

Jean-Christophe Buisson's 1999 biography of Mihailovic is one good example of the pro-Mihailovic trend, and goes to great lengths to prove its views (you will notice that I have been very cautious about using this book as a source, with the "early life" section being the main exception, since I had no other detailed source about this). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What has all that have to do with anything? Quite simply,
 * The concept that Mihailović's collaboration is a "Titoist Yugoslav thing" is wrong and cannot be inserted into the article.
 * The concept that other Yugoslav nations (aside from the Serbs) had any part in Mihailović's "rehabilitation" in Serbia is wrong and cannot be inserted into the article.
 * There is little or nothing more to be said on those two issues. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JJG's background and Direktor's comment are both useful. I will bear them in mind. Sunray (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment stemmed from the fact that I couldn't really understand what the controversy was about (my patience being finite and my time limited, I did not have the courage to read that enormous block of text so I made have somewhat missed the point). As for the relation between the perception of Mihailovic and "Titoist history" : it is important to point that out, since the Titoist/Partisan vision of the war was one of the foundations of Tito's regime. So Mihailovic being officially considered a "traitor" was central.
 * As for the contemporary perception of Mihailovic in other ex-Yugoslav countries than Serbia (be it official perception or general public perception) : if there is something relevant to say about it, it should be said. If there isn't anything to say, it shouldn't. That's it. There is an article called "The Fall and Rise of a National Hero" which basically starts with "Draza Mihailovic is now a national hero in Serbia, but a nationalist and Fascist war criminal in Croatia and Bosnia." It would be interesting to have a look at it.
 * BTW, I share Fkp's opinion that the current crummy "article" has been giving wikipedia a bad name for too long and should be replaced ASAP. I suggest we try to speed up things a little (ok, I shouldn't be saying this since I'll be on vacation until July 22, but afterwards I think we should try to do something worthwile with this mediation and come up with an acceptable version). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity, Direktor's changes are here. Fkp's are here. Sunray (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Fkp's changes are very minor and pose no problem IMHO. Direktor's changes are, quite simply, bad. Adding "After the war, Mihailović's wartime role was viewed in the light of his movement's collaboration, particularly in Yugoslavia where he was considered a collaborator convicted of high treason" is inadequate (especially the link to high treason, which uselessly hammers the point in Direktor's traditionally unsubtle fashion. It's about as effective as writing "Mihailovic was a cruel and evil traitor".). Mihailovic and the Chetnik's roles have never been the subject of a widely accepted consensus after the war. Removing the adjective "communist" from "historiography" is ridiculous : it misses the point entirely (ok, we might write "Titoist" historiography... but "communist" is clear enough IMHO). Hence, I support Fkp's changes and do not support Direktor's. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, JJG has and will always opposed anything I do, so there's really no surprise there, however there is also no argument. How does one subtly hint at Mihailović being "convicted of high treason"? Do we add some seasoning such as "the evil communists convicted him of high treason"? I'm not French, you tell me... :)


 * Point a) "Mihailović's wartime role was viewed in the light of his movement's collaboration" - quite well sourced. You've all (presumably) read the quotes, I don't think anyone wants me to clutter-up the page with more copy/pasted source excerpts. The contrary view on the other hand, that being (quote) "Mihailović was hailed as a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia", has no sources.
 * Point b) "...particularly in Yugoslavia where he was considered a collaborator convicted of high treason." Why someone would possibly object to this is beyond my comprehension. It is the most basic, most obvious, most indisputable fact someone can state about this person, apart maybe from "Draža Mihailović converted carbohydrates into muscle energy".
 * Point c) "communist historiography". This point is beyond debate. There is no such thing as "communist historiography" no more than "capitalist historiography" or "imperialist historiography", nor was there any "official history" in Yugoslavia. I can only repeat: the "view" that Mihailović engaged in collaboration a) is not a Yugoslav view, b) is not a communist view, c) is not a "Titoist" view. Implications such as that are wrong and (predictably) unsourced.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact that DM was condemned as a traitor by Tito's regime is clearly stated elsewhere. No need to hammer the point, especially given the ridiculousness of the sentence : high treason to whom ? To a regime (Tito's Yugoslavia) which did not yet exist ? To the royal government, of which several ministers were tried in absentia at the same time as DM ? Hammering down the "high treason" notion is simply a way of implying its validity, which is questionable to start with. So there's no need to mention this over and over again.
 * Coming from someone who loves to push his personal views by overusing generic words like "traitor", "collaborator", "quisling", etc., the argument about "communist historiography" being improper is simply laughable. It means, quite simply : "the historiography of Tito's regime, which was dominated by the Communist party of Yugoslavia and was, hence, classified as communist". Need more explanation ?
 * As for "Mihailović was hailed as a hero by the majority outside Yugoslavia", that was certainly the case as far the Allies were concerned, until late 1943. As for the post-war period, there has been no consensus and I think we should leave it at that. But denying that there have been notable authors and politicians defending DM is ridiculous. That is not saying that DM's defenders were or are right on all counts : but claiming that there is a consensus around the opposite view is misleading at best. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stating a fact twice in an article when it fits two different contexts is not "hammering", and I do not see how you can oppose it if you understand its obviously factual??! You unbelievably still do not understand a basic fact such as that SFR Yugoslavia is the same state as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the former succeeding the latter completely legitimately and being its legal successor in every way, so much so that they are hardly a different state in general terms. Or that Mihailović's acts of collaboration with the Axis enemy are treasonous towards the King and royal government in the exact same measure as to the post-war government. Or that by 1944 Tito was the King's Prime Minister and Mihailović a defecting officer disobeying orders to join the Allies? The above post is a statement to the futility of this discussion. I can only ask you again to read-up on this period.


 * The issue is the post-1945 period. You know? When they couldn't even award him publicly because of the negative backlash? The man did engage in collaboration, hence he committed treasonous acts. This was proven beyond any doubt on this talkpage, conclusively and in accordance with scientific and Wikipedia standards of verifiability. Therefore saying he is a "collaborator" or "traitor" is not POV, but a statement of fact. On the other hand, proclaiming everything written in Yugoslavia between 1945-1992 as "communist historiography" or "Tito's regime historiography" is the most obvious POV imaginable. It degrades the work of hundreds and thousands of respected scholars over the period of half a century to the level of political proaganda witha single, incredibly pretentious and arrogant stroke


 * "Communist historiography" is nonsense. Period. "Yugoslav historiography" is the only acceptable alternative when referring to that which you described. There is absolutely no way such heavy-duty POV as "Tito's regime" or "communist history" can be entered into any WP article. The sentence, however, is fine as it is and can easily be backed up by a mass of sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are here inside this dilema: This two concepts are very different, and I beleave the trouth is however somewhere in between, meaning, he had to be "rehabilitated" ONLY inside Yugoslavia, because it was the only place "rehabilitation" was necessary, since it was the only place where such a negative perception on him was ever generally cultivated (some world historians are just exceptions). The rehabilitation was donne in Serbia, accepted among Serbs, rejected in Croatia and Bosnian-Croat Fed., and the others balance, however, none of other republics of ex-Yu share any of this radical touths on him in general, meaning, they don´t consider him a "hero" (exceptions in Serbia populated areas), but they also don´t consider him a traitor (exceptions the Croat and Bosniak populated areas). But, the SOURCES (yes, direktor, sources), do say that:
 * Direktor want´s to emphisize how M is considered a collaborator acused of high treason everywhere but in Serbia.
 * I defend, as counterbalance, that what direktor defends is exclusive of the historiography inside Tito Yugoslavia, and today, has been continued to be accepted exclusively in Croatia (by the official authorities) and in BiH (only by the Bosnian-Croat Federation part).
 * He was considered traitor and mainly collaborator ONLY in Tito Yugoslavia, and today, that ideology is followed ONLY by Croatia and Bosnian-Croat part of Bosnia.
 * He has been considered a hero mostly among Serbs (there are Monarchists among Montenegrins and Macedonians, as well), and he is considered a resistance figure by vastly more population.
 * In the world, he is NOT considered neither a "traitor collaborator", neither a "hero". But, he IS regarded as a resistance leader.
 * The award he receved from US was NOT exclusively for the rescued airmans (direktor wants to show how he was a collaborator that conveniently rescued some airmans to earn him a medal). He was awarded for his resistance efforts, including, the airmans rescue (big difference).
 * The "Communist"/"Titoist", however wanna call it, "ideology", "historiography" is a perfectly acceptable and neededly important to mention, because (and sorry direktor) Tito Yugoslavia was not famous for their freedom of speach of the oposition. Tito gave many freedom to the population that other communist countries didn´t had, but "freedom of speach" for the oposition (Tito enemy, in this case) was definitelly NOT one of them. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this has been useful, though far more than I really needed. One might only wish that you folks had as much energy for collaboration as you do for dispute. On the bright side, it has been said that a disagreement is a shortcut between two minds. Moreover, it makes for better articles (or so they say). One has only to channel the energies of the dispute. Sheesh. Not an easy task. So now I think I have enough info from different quarters to propose something. Given the verbiage it will take me awhile. Meantime, let's move on. I will put up the first subsection of the "World War II" section for discussion. Sunray (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer entirely, the dilemma is this:
 * Your point of view is this: 1) You wish to insinuate that during the Cold War Draža Mihailović was considered to have collaborated only in Yugoslavia, while everywhere else this was not the case. This is what I found in the section, and rewrote. - I maintain that this insinuation is unsourced. 2) You also wish to insinuate that Draža Mihailović was rehabilitated elsewhere in Yugoslavia, other than by the Serbs and in Serb-populated regions. This is what I found in the section, and rewrote. - I maintain this insinuation is unsourced.
 * Hence, you require sources that prove the following:
 * 1) That during the Cold War the scientific community outside Yugoslavia was at least divided on the issue. This will require essentially that you produce a large number of sources from that period expressing the point of view that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate. This would show that the community outside Yugoslavia was divided, as opposed to the current situation where we have a number of Cold War-period sources confirming his collaboration. and 2) That scientists from Montenegro or Macedonia or Republika Srpska also participated in "rehabilitating" Mihailović. This would show that this was not an exclusively Serbian process, as you appear to maintain.


 * As for the other points:
 * Only in Croatia and Federation BiH? The sources do not say that. Present your alleged source.
 * No. He was considered a traitor in Serbia as well up until the Milošević era of nationalism resurgence, i.e in the late 1980s. Not a single author from Serbia suggested anything of the sort before Milošević took power in the SKS. Whatever you assume the populace "really" thought is not my concern. Only after the unpopular Tito's 1974 constitution did Serbs slowly stop singing praises to Tito.
 * He is regarded as a resistance leader that engaged in collaboration. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
 * Sigh... Such awards are not granted for being an "all-round good guy", but for specific acts. It was granted for Operation Halyard, and was pushed through by airmen the Chetniks saved there.
 * There is no way 50 years of Yugoslav scholarship in the field of historiography will be degraded to the level of political propaganda. "Communist/Titoist history" is not a phrase I am ever likely to agree to. And yes, Tito's Yugoslavia was actually famous for its liberal socialism and freedom of speech. The SFRY was not an Eastern Bloc country.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again on the main issue. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In all international sources, DM is regarded as resistance figure. Only in some, he is regarded as collaborator.
 * The international comunity was NOT divided over this. The ones considering him a traitor simply are non-existing, and a mostly a collaborator are a minority.
 * I don´t need sources for presenting that M is regarded as a traitor only in Croatia. Facts (as a basket incident) are sources for that. They occured only there.
 * As said, the "acusation" (or radicalism/exception) needs sources. You need to prove that anyone else agrees with Tito/Croatian (radical) view on the issue.
 * Yes, I agree he was considered traitor in Serbia until Tito fall (1980/1990s), because there was only one policy in the entire country, the Tito one! Here goes your freedom of speach theory. You know what happend to people that disagree with Tito about Mihailovic back then? Does Goli Otok says something to you?
 * My point about the award is very much seen in the speach itself.
 * You just all credibility by your last point over Yugoslavia freedom of speach. It was so wide as yours... hahahaha! (Sorry...)
 * Personally, you just want to make WP a channel for the Croatian POV about the subject, while I don´t defend any radical POV as such as you defend. What you said back there about the "stupidity" of the basket player shows it well. Here is what you said: . Should I remind you that is not up to us (or WP) to judge people about their totooes... specially not if they are of historical content (not nazy like, as you want to make it look). You should read more about democracy, and freedom of speach... FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This has gone beyond the bounds of being of any use. Comments such as ""you just want to make WP a channel for the Croatian point of view" are out of bounds. Please stop now and take a look at the new section, below. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. Apologies Sunray. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But please have in mind that the reason why I said it is because Direktor defends an extreme point of view that is very polemical and far from being accepted anywhere but in Croatia, while I am defending a mild precise version that will escape the polemics and be helpfull for further exploring all POV´s... We need to be dinamic here, and direktor is behaving in dictatorial manner by only accepting "his" favourite version. I´m sorry, but he sounds like a anti-Mihailovic Ministry of Interior functionaire... Just ridiculous... FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Direktor is entitled to his perspective, as you are to yours. Right now you need a mediator to try to find a synthesis. Soon you will be able to negotiate this yourselves, no? Sunray (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will like to beleave so, but, I didn´t reverted any of the changes made by him, and discussed the points I disagree with (I let most go as good will and not wanting to delay further, but that doesn´t look to count), and it was my minor changes that were promptly reverted... How can it depend on me, if the minor oposition I do is ignored? FkpCascais (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is being ignored? I gave you both two options. You didn't respond. Direktor rejected my first option and as a result I said I would review the matter. I intend to do that. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did reject your proposal, but simply because it seems not entirely in agreement with WP:V. I have nothing against compromise between two sourced points of view, but adding something inot the article simply because someone says it does not make sense. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No compromise reached in mediation could deviate from WP policy, including WP:V. Sunray (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fkp, your above post truly is a dead end... how am I supoposed to respond to positive statements of opinion. Its the same old pattern: you calim something, I ask you for sources, you provide none, on and on and on... Why do you even bother making claims when you have no sources to support them. Then you just add comments like "...hahahahaha..." which bring up questions of your age. What are we doing here?
 * Example: "The ones considering him a traitor simply are non-existing, and a mostly a collaborator are a minority."
 * Please prove this statement. Source it any way, please. Provide any reason why it shouldn't be simply disregarded. I assure you, all my points are well grounded in sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't answer this please, FKP. I've got enough to review. Direktor: Any comments on the section below? Sunray (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm on vacation so only following WP sporadically, and I have not taken the time to read through the above exchange in detail. Sunray, this page shows that the while opinion is divided as to whether or the extent to which Mihailovic collaborated, it is certainly not the case that outside the former Yugoslavia Mihailovic is mostly thought of as a hero/resistance fighter. I am aware of two distinct rehabilitation efforts, the one covered already in the legacy section originating in Serbia, and one in the US as a follow on to Felman's efforts to get Mihailovic recognized for saving Allied airmen. Sorry to add to the pile, but this is why you're paid the big bucks as mediator. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nuujinn. I always appreciate hearing different perspectives. Sunray (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a minor remark: hero and resistance leader are not the same... He may be considered a "hero" by some, but there are no doubts he was a resistance movement leader. FkpCascais (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the sources support your assertion that "there are no doubts he was a resistance movement leader." There are a number of sources that claim that Mihailovic's resistance activities were minimal, and indeed the withdrawal of British support was predicated in part on the lack of resistance activities. Of course, if you have sources that show otherwise, please cite them. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All sources do regard him as a resistance movement leader. Even you by saying "minimal" are admiting it. Minimal is not nothing... I don´t understand how you want me to source something so wide? Sources could be: British, and generally Allies, support, their main goals (liberation against Axis invasion), fighting Axis troops, cease-fires (meaning, ceasing fights with Axis), the awards... This entire "collaboration debate" is exactly interesting in this case because we are talking about a resistance movement that (yes,no, so-so) collaborated. you don´t see discussions weather Mussolini Italy collaborated... I can´t beleave we are even discussing this. FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I disagree, and what I'm asking for is sources supporting your statement "there are no doubts he was a resistance movement leader." Clearly the british came to doubt that Mihailovic was leading a resistance movement, Roberts covers that aspect extensively. See also this article from Time. Honestly, I've been very surprised at how little documentation exists in the main sources of acts of resistance ordered by Mihailovic. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Sources, Fkp. Sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not a surprise that there isn´t much written because of a series of causes: they lost, Tito won and "re-wrote" parts of history (yes, direktor, I know you disagree...), there was not many interess in writing about it, and the only ones who could eventually be interested (mostly Serbs) were forbitten (in Yugoslavia) or disencouradged to do it. We would certainly have had much more documented if Chetniks were winners, but that is obviously speculation... OK, regarding the Times article (and knowing how magazine articles are...) we can also see that:
 * Talks about (important for "my" theory) a "...triangular Civil War". I was saying precisely that from the begining...
 * Talks how, citing: "Partisans had eclipsed Mihailovich" as "the resistance of the peoples of Europe to Nazi invaders". Eclipsing them, means they did more, but anyway, it does include M and Chetniks as resistance.
 * The Axis comunications refered mostly to the Partisans resistance, and rarely the Chetniks. Well, rarely is not, never. And it does mean they were resistance, even if less than Partisans...
 * "In November 1941, General Mihailovich's heterogeneous band suffered a serious defeat near Valjevo at the hands of German mechanized columns...". Source for fighting between them.
 * "Units under Đajić and Drenović joined Italians". Not Mihailovic.
 * M "retired to relative inactivity somewhere in Montenegro" and "Montenegrin Partisans charge that in certain instances Mihailovich collaborated with the Italians." Important, Mont.Partisans say that, not the author...
 * The rest is not really about Mihailovic. But, I beleave there are Time´s articles that practically glorify him, arent´t there? The one with him on the cover? FkpCascais (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh 2 .... None of those sources really matter much, as I'm sure you see yourself, Fpk. Remember, you're trying to prove that most sources say "Draža Mihailović was a resistance leader", and do not at the same time elaborate on how he collaborated with the Axis (which is my view).


 * There's really nothing to debate here. This person is a resistance leader that collaborated with the Axis. There's nothing strange in the statement, nor is he the only person that would fit that description. Of course... Fkp still maintains he did not collaborate with the Axis... this will never end... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From the Times article: "Mihailovich the Chetnilc. Misled by previous reports, many a U.S. citizen had come to identify General Draja Mihailovich and his Chetniks with the resistance of the peoples of Europe to Nazi invaders." Also, in regard to contact with the Germans in late 1941, if you will recall, it was in later 1941 that Mihailovic attempted to come to an agreement with the Germans, then attacked the Partisans, and were decimated in a counter attack. After that, the Germans initiated attacks against both the Partisans and Chetniks. Yes, the Chetniks fought the Germans at that time, but not as an act of resistance, and only because they were attacked. Yes, there was an earlier Times article that glorified him, but IIRC that was before the Partisans were known outside of Yugoslavia and based on propaganda reports from the YGIE used to build up Milhailovic's image. See Roberts, pp 37-39 for details. -- Nuujinn (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that much is perfectly obvious. I don't quite understand why you're even mentioning Time Magazine. The publication that published Josip Broz Tito on its cover four times (1944, 1946, 1955, 1969), and wrote things like:
 * "A Yugoslav colonel, Draja Mihailovich, retired to the hills with a handful of soldiers and kept on fighting. He may or may not have heard about the hard-faced Croat named Tito, who, a month before the German armies invaded Russia, had re appeared in Zagreb and Belgrade. For a time Tito, the Croat, and Colonel Mihailovich, the Serb, worked together. Then the followers of Draja Mihailovich clashed with Tito's Partisans. (...) Tito's movement attracted the most followers. He struck the Germans at every chance, captured their supplies and arms. His Partisans, dispersed through the hills, ate when they could, which was not often, fought when they could, which was often enough. The Partisan emblem was a red, five-pointed star. For a time a yellow hammer & sickle was used by one brigade, soon was discreetly dropped. Word spread through the hills, towns and cities: a remarkable Croat named Tito was fighting the Germans. Yugoslavs from all classes and political parties joined him, including, last week, a son of Mihailovich. Young, strong women like Stana Tomashevich marched and fought like men. Their favorite weapon was the German Schmeisser machine pistol. Their favorite song was a haunting old air sung to these words: Hey, Slavs, in vain the depths of hell threaten, O Slavs, you still are free! (...) The blacksmith's boy from Klanjec had become leader of a resistance movement that at one time or another pinned down as many as 18 German divisions in fruitless, fraying warfare in the wild Croatian and Bosnian mountains. But even in the darkest days, when it seemed as if the out side world would never hear the thunder of war reverberating among the beleaguered hills, Tito seldom grew irritable or despondent. (...)  King Peter's men, through ignorance or fear, or both, would not acknowledge the existence of the Communist leader of the Partisans. They controlled the channels of news coming out of Yugoslavia to the Allied side. For two years the Allied public did not even hear of Tito. Often the deeds of Tito were ascribed to Mihailovich, whose loyalty to King Peter was unquestioned. The new [Yugoslav] Government, called the National Committee of Liberation, was scarcely more Communist than its program. Out of 17 Cabinet officers, five were Communists. Time Magazine, THE BALKANS: Area of Decision, October 9 1944"


 * :P Also, I reccomend you read the Time Magazine article of 6 June 1955 jovially entitled Come Back, Little Tito, for a summary of that publications views on post-war Yugoslavia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @Nuujin, I know that sentence, and I beleave you want to give emphasis to the word "mislead", but however you turn it, it only basically say that Partisans were more resistance than Chetniks, but never excludes them. And whoever attacked who, fighting German forces (including defending from attacks) is by itself the greatest act of resistance... FkpCascais (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Direktor, about you comment, I beleave you dispersed a bit from the issue, but anyway, I will like to emphasize the following statemnts from the articles you provided:
 * "A Yugoslav colonel, Draja Mihailovich, retired to the hills with a handful of soldiers and kept on fighting".
 * "For a time Tito, the Croat, and Colonel Mihailovich, the Serb, worked together." Worked together (for a time, I know) on what? On acts of resistance.
 * I understand you (direktor) simpatize with Tito and the Partisans (I do as well), but I consider wrong your approach towards the Chetniks and Mihailovic.
 * P.S.:I was trying to keep my posts as short and clear as possible so it would facilitate things. Do you, Sunray, have any indications you want to give us about if should we continue this discussion, stop, concentrate more on certain issues...? FkpCascais (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fkp, whether I "sympathize" with the Partisans or no is irrelevant here. I do not edit according to my "sympathies", but according to the facts I've researched in secondary publications. I did not try to say anything like this until I found out just how obvious it is that this person collaborated.


 * As for your extracts, they are what is called "quote mining". A quote is not "quote-mined" unless it is displayed in an unrepresentative manner with regard to the wider context. Extracting a few words from a sentence, like "For a time Tito, the Croat, and Colonel Mihailovich, the Serb, worked together" from "For a time Tito, the Croat, and Colonel Mihailovich, the Serb, worked together. Then the followers of Draja Mihailovich clashed with Tito's Partisans" is texbook quote mining.


 * The two worked together for approximately one month (October 1941). The Partisans started the first uprising in Yugoslavia, and Mihailović offered to join them after a while. Tito accepted. In one month time, Draža Mihailović sent Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of his personal aides, to contact German intelligence on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that Colonel Draža Mihailović was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism". On November 1 the Chetniks attacked Partisan posts. This is why "Chetniks" were synonymous with "traitors" among the Partisans and throughout Yugoslavia after the war. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I will summarize my thoughts on the above discussion here when I'm back in a few days. [Personal discussion with FkpCascais moved to Sunray's talk page]. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)