Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Ok you won: never more contribute by me in dalmatian articles ok? I'm not a sock, so thanks me for house of cerva and stop bother me or accusing me i'm not interested any more in YOUR influenced pages.
Another edit war
.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Director. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Is that right? As I can see only Italians voted "support". The problem are english books wich don't refer him as Vrančić, we'll see how long it will take. I'll see what I can do...--Wustenfuchs18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, do what you need to do. Discredited my self? I don't bealive so...
No amount of resizing will shrink that tremendous noggin :). No seriously, sou just can't. His head takes-up his whole portrait, and the portrait has to be of the same proportions as other portraits. But its not so bad.. --DIREKTOR17:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On the mediation talk page you recently made the following statement: "... this mediation has been mismanaged in numerous ways and beyond repair." My concern, at the moment is not whether the mediation was mismanaged (I've made many mistakes in my life and I'm not worried about admitting mistakes in a mediation - I make 'em all the time). Although, the judgement "mismanaged" seems harsh and overstated. My main concern is the "beyond repair" comment. If things are beyond repair, then we should just close it. But are they?
I know that we had a discussion back in November on this subject. Your last comment was the following: "To be clearer, imho we need to one 1) start an orderly, structured, impersonal debate on the main issue, and 2) we need you as the impartial, objective mediator to step in when you assess that this or that fact under discussion has been established in accordance with Misplaced Pages requirements and policy. That is basically all I'm saying." There are various reasons why we did not do that (i.e., have an orderly, structured, impersonal debate) back in November. Let me just summarize them by saying that IMO the main participants were not able to do that, then. However, I always did plan to get to that in the context of the "Legacy" section. Why the "Legacy" section? Because the discussion (dispute) that emerged on that topic was precisely the kind of discussion that would benefit from an orderly, structured debate. However, I judged that it was not possible at that moment to have that debate.
I made the call based on the circumstances at the time. I may have been mistaken in my judgement. While I doubt that, I do not see it as being detrimental to a resolution now. I'm saying that I think that the circumstances are different now and am offering to have that orderly, structured, impersonal debate (see mediation talk page). Would you be willing to participate in that discussion now? Sunray (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sunray, had I been in your shoes, the first thing I would have done almost a year ago would have been to ask the involved users to present their sources (quotations and/or page references). I would then have attempted to move the debate forward by helping the participants establish this or that relevant fact as a sourced fact (based entirely on WP:V). If sources contradict we would compare their strength on the basis (or bare existence) of any quoted primary sources, if they're arguably equal in strength - we would quote them both. Thus we would move forward. Once we've answered by this method the actual question that caused the conflict, only then would it possible to move on to an (inevitably brief) discussion on the exact wording we would use to represent the facts. And again, if an unlikely problem still arose there (in spite of having arrived at a conclusion concerning the main issue), I would advise the conflicted parties to follow the sources as closely as possible.
This is not my method or invention - this is essentially the "scientific" course of action. I may be still an undergraduate, but we do know how to address conflicting claims (though usually all we have to do is check out what Cochrane has to say :)). This is also how I formed my position on the issue in question.
What you are doing is simply telling us (and by "us" I mean good old Nuujin) to write away. Not only is this virtually impossible (with more people than Nuujin actually writing) because the main issue is not solved, but even if somehow this prolonged, gruelling business, where we debate each word separately instead of the issue itself, is brought to an end - we would still only have a superficial solution, after immense effort, with the underlying main conflict still alive and kicking. --DIREKTOR00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear with what I was proposing. But first, I will comment on the method you propose in your first paragraph. What you propose is fine as long as everyone realizes that sources must support text. Disputes often break out (in academia, in Misplaced Pages) over interpretations of text. Sometimes it is necessary to quote the text verbatim so that there is no misunderstanding. The art and science of collaborative editing is to find a way for editors to be able to discuss and when there is a dispute to be able to reach agreement. That would be the ultimate aim of a mediation. We came to a block in the mediation because we were not able to find a way to do that. Then.
What I've proposed is that we sort through the differences between you and Fkp - with reference to sources and text. I don't mean that one is going to win and the other lose. I mean win/win. That is not easy. But when I talk about looking at the Legacy section, I mean looking at any fundamental differences between the two of you that surfaced during the discussion of that section and finding the way to resolve them. I chose the Legacy section, it was during the review of that section that the dispute came to a head. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
What you're saying is that people wouldn't "accept" sources? I.e. that they would not accept what sources have to say? Well if that problem is not solved, then the dispute can't be solved at all in the first place. I for one am confident, however, that if User:Sunray were to say "this is sourced" the acceptance would follow very shortly. --DIREKTOR11:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is almost always bias in sources. Editors have to write a balanced article. Still, if there are a preponderance of sources all saying one thing, the article must reflect that as the dominant point of view. Would you be willing to answer to my question on the mediation page now? Sunray (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
No. No, there isn't. There isn't any bias in the sources we used for this. The only reason you think there is "bias" in the relevant sources is that User:FpkCascias claims there is "bias" in sources. Which he does because they contradict him directly. Peer reviews say otherwise. And besides, statements can easily be verified by their support in primary sources.
For example:
"On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative , Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks (p. 329)
Notice the carefully listed primary source from the OKW archives. And here are the peer reviews:
"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states." -Ivo Banac, Yale University
"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources." -Choice Magazine
"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones." -History: Reviews of New Books
"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come." -American Historical Review
"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War." -Canadian Slavonic Papers
"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him." -Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945." -Slavic Review
But no, lets just assume the source is "biased" because Misplaced Pages User:FkpCascias claims that it is biased over and over and over again. --DIREKTOR17:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you assumed that I was referring to a particular source and suggesting it was biased. That was not my intent. I made a general statement that all sources have a bias. We are talking about different things. Your argument is essentially about the reliability of a particular source. In that regard, I believe that your arguments are correct. Bias and reliability are two very different things. Reliability is a policy requirement. Balance is another. Editors must weigh both in deciding which sources to include and their weight in the article. Can we move on to the question on the talk page, now?. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well no, I did not assume that. I was just demonstrating how there are unbiased sources, and that they CAN be used to solve this conflict quickly and to the point. The example source is
1) reliable - because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed publication by Stanford University (WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."), and it is very well referenced by primary sources.
2) unbiased. Because not only is there no peer review that even hints at any bias there, but there are many positive peer reviews that actually praise the objectivity of the work.
"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work." -Eric Gordy, Clark University
This source alone, an intercepted radio communication used as a primary source in a university publication, where Draža mihailović in his own words first orders his subordinate to collaborate, and then explaisn how he needs to keep his own hands clean, should be enough in any reasonable circumstances to end the "debate" right then and there. Especially in light of virtually NO contradicting sources presented by the other side. That however, is not what I think is going to happen over in the mediation.
This was just an example of what I mean when I say that sources should be used to end the main debate. I however, simply do not have the willpower to waste even MORE energy in nonsense debating with football fans that have no understanding of this war. --DIREKTOR17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems evident that I was speaking in general terms and you were talking about a specific set of sources. We were talking about different things. When I realized that, I told you that I agreed with your point and said that I did not think it invalidated what I was saying.
Your response states that you are tired of debating with football fans. I'm unclear how that applies to the mediation. I've asked you if you would agree to a facilitated discussion between you and Fkp with reference to the "Legacy" section. (Note that it could be any other content agreed to by the participants, but there needs to be some content to discuss). I am requesting that you respond with a simple "yes" or "no." If you decide not to proceed with that, I will contact the other participants about how they would like to proceed in wrapping up the mediation (with reference to my note on "Completing mediation"}. So, one last time: Would you be willing to engage in a structured discussion with FkpCascais, facilitated by me? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We are talking about the same thing. As I pointed out several times ("For example"), this is only a specific example I use(d) in our general discussion. You made a general statement that "unfortunately there is almost always bias in sources". I stated I disagree, and listed a specifc example of a source relevant to our issue that is essentially unbiased, and at the same time very significant. Tertiary sources that stick to their secondary sources are not biased, and secondary sources that stick to their primary sources are not biased. There are such sources available to us.
User:FkpCascais is a football (soccer) fan. And spends most of his time on Wiki doing quality edits in such articles. What little he knows about WWII Yugoslavia, however, is not founded on actual sources, but on the deep-rooted beliefs of the general public about their history. The pattern I have seen thus far is 1) Someone lists a source, 2) FkpCascias "denounces" it (he himself denounces a scholar, based on his own claim, outrageous!) with various nonsense claims of "bias" and "selective representation" (a line he picked up from JJG), and we go on "debating". As if the source does not even exist. I mean this kind of stuff is devastating. You don't just ignore it and move on. You accept that you were demonstrably dead wrong.
I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (likely teenage) football fan, because the mediation wants us to "agree". Well what if the man simply refuses to agree in perpetuity? Does that mean sources just aren't sources? Facts are not facts? I'm essentially advising you to step in when you see a source like the above, and move the discussion forward by advising the users that this is a reliable source which has succeeded in demonstrating a fact. --DIREKTOR19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I must point out that the quotes you presented, supporting Tomasevich, are not peer reviews. In the publishing trade, they are known as "blurbs." But, I don't want to question the value of Tomasevich as a source.
My comment about bias has to do with the nature of historical narratives. In all of the social sciences there are questions about what and how the researcher choses to study and how that biases the outcome. Many books have been written on the subject and it is way outside the scope of our discussion about this mediation. We will only concern ourselves with policy issues such as verifiable and reliable sources and weight. The issue of acceptance of sources, on the other hand, would be most relevant to our discussion. You have not yet answered my question, so I will pose another: Would you be able to prepare a short (one-paragraph) statement of what you would like to get out of a structured conversation with Fkp and how you would like to proceed? Sunray (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I'm pretty sure I don't have to repeat this, but in your short statement, please stick to content, not the contributor :) Sunray (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing I want to get out of a conversation with Fkp. I don't even want to have a conversation with Fkp. Not because I dislike him (though there is that too), but because there is nothing I could possibly get out of a conversation with Fkp. I cannot change his position, noone can. He's here to defend his Chetniks, and that's what he will do regardless of the sources. That is essentiall the whole entire problem.
Let me repeat:
I found that the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais' simply "refuses" to accept sources, and simply "refuses" to admit he was wrong in his assertion. Sources have absoltely NO EFFECT on the course of the debate. This is why it is standing still - because sources are the only way to solve such disputtes. Over there, world-class scholars completely depend on the "approval" of a (teenage) football fan, because the mediation apparently wants us to "agree". How do you intend to rectify this problem? That is to say, can you rectify this problem in some conceivable way? I've essentially lost faith in such a possibilty in that mediation.
My next step will be to write a detailed, carefully sourced, high quality section on Draža Mihailović's dealings with the Axis. When Fkp removes it, I will post an RfC and will make such a noise so that people might finally notice: "What? He's removin' this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??". I am confident Wikipedians are not quite so stupid as to just take someone's word on the alleged bias of acclaimed scholarly publications.
In any case, it cannot be much worse than waiting for someone to say "What? He's opposing this? On what grounds? Its sourced.. ??" over at that mediation. --DIREKTOR00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The point of the mediation should be to settle what references will be used and how they will be presented. However, since you are unwilling to enter into a structured discussion, we shall move on. I will approach this another way, and poll the other participants about what they want to do. Sunray (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's all very intersting, however, "the mediation has no capacity to solve a situation where User:FkpCascais simply 'refuses' to accept these same references you are talking about, and simply 'refuses' to admit he was wrong in his assertion(s)". That is exactly why the mediation lasted almost a year instead of two weeks. Whenever we discuss this, Sunray, you simply talk around the critical questions. How do you intend to address this?
If you've decided to actually institute some real changes in how things are done there, then I will return. These are not my "conditions", this is not a "threat", you have to understand I have no reason to think that after all that wasted energy I will not simply waste more. Even now I feel incrdibly stupid to have written all those pages, quoted all those sources, essentially with no effect anywhere.
The ancient mediation is at this stage a "ceasefire" at best and a joke at worst. As I said earlier, as things stand I have no intention at all of abiding by any conclusions drawn in the RfM, regardless of any (essentially unilateral) instant-mix "proclamations" that may be posted in an effort to make it seem a less pointless affair. I am not required to do so, nor could any objective observer possibly blame me, or doubt that a "mediation" that lasts 12 months instead of two weeks has some deep, deep flaws in the thinking behind it. --DIREKTOR01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent posts
DIREKTOR. As you know I have been endeavouring to assist in achieving a more collaborative environment on various Balkans pages. I have spoken to you before about your intemperate and personalising tone when debating issues with others. I had thought things had calmed down a little. I was therefore somewhat disconcerted at the tone and content of your recent posts on Yugoslav Front and Serbs of Croatia. You seem to be unable to leave any comment unanswered and to be almost unable to comment without grossly personalising the debate. Your behaviour on these talkpages chills discussion and probably discourages contributions from editors who are unprepared to put up with your constant aggressive and personal diatribes against anyone who disagrees with you. Your behaviour is in the region of WP:DISRUPT. This really must stop. Fainitesscribs11:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
To be brief: I know, I apologize, and I shall stop. I'm just.. kind of frustrated on several fronts and I lost it when after almost 2 hours of careful image work that.. really nice man over at Talk:Croats decided I was "playing dumb". --DIREKTOR11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for intervening here, but this needs to stop. Nazification is a serios issue, and done this way is a profound desrespect and insult. This user has donne this purpously and continuosly despite knowing that a mediation on this is going on and that things are certainly not that way. We all make an effort to be civil and respectfull. My Serbian and Jewish roots give me special sensitivity on this, and I garantee you that if this was donne towards some other nationality this would be sanctioned inmediately. Having green light to nazify Serbian historical fugures is something that should not be tolerated. The user has been called for his attention for this several times, but purpously with bad-faith ignores this.and continues to do it. In the meantime another same POV user is edit waring on related articles, having fun by adding categories such as Category:Serbian Nazi collaboratorsSee here. A mediation is resuming on this issue now, this user should at least have some desency and respect to wait for the outcome. FkpCascais (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you're terribly apalled and concerned. But as far as the sources are concerned, Momčilo Đujić is a notorious Axis collaborator. This is well known and completely obvious. What needs to stop is your annoying pro-Chetnik POV-pushing. Only a person completely unfamiliar with this person's activities, one who never really took the time to understand WWII Yugoslavia, could possibly state that this person did not collaborate with the Axis.
"A report of the XCVIIth Army Corps notes that (...) In case of an Axis landing they would change sides, as would collaborating Serbian groups, that is, Ljotić's Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Chetniks of Dobroslav Jevđević and Momčilo Đujić."
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 127)
But in other cases, for example that of Revered Đujić's detachments in northern Dalmatia and Western Bosnia, the Italians used Chetnik Units almost...
— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 262)
"Some troops, notably those under Đujić and Jevđević, as well as a large part of the forces in eastern Bosnia, continued to collaborate with the Germans against the Partisans."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 428)
"On November 20 1945 the Germans intercepted a radion message from Mihailović to Vojvoda Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with teh enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative , Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."
— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 329)
Oh here's Ramet, she's a lot more superficial than a work that deals only and specifically with the Chetniks, but here we go:
"By mid-June 1942, the NDH authorities have established cooperation with the following Chetnik leaders: (...) Momčilo Đujić (Strmica)..."
— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, (p.129)
Đujić is the No.1 Chetnik leader ("vojvoda") who collaborated with the Axis, primarily with the Italians, but also with the Germans and the NDH since mid-1942, not only with Mihailović's full knowledge - but under his explicit instructions. As for Mihailović himself, Tomasevich essentially devotes the whole chapter "After the Italian collapse" to describing the complex collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and the Germans (that followed the Italian capitulation). He notes that these agreements (which detailed the areas in which Chetniks were to cooperate with the Germans) deliberately left a corridor between Mihsilović's "personal" area, which was under his direct command, and the "areas of collaboration" where the treasonous agreements apply. He also notes on pp. 328-329, that this was in accordance with Mihailović's policy of "keeping his own hands clean". A policy he himself admitted to in numerous intercepted communications with his subprdinates. All this is straight from the German records and is closely supported by said primary sources.
Now, Fainites, can you believe we're still discussing whether Miahilović collaborated with the Axis? In Serbia, of course, all this (and more!) is simply glossed-over by the general public. Hence Fkp with his pals that simply "refuse to accept" such sources and attack others in the manner you can see above. (Btw, I'm also a Croatian-nationalist communist for saying all this.) --DIREKTOR16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying Tito ordered his commanders to collaborate with the Germans? :) What Zagreb talks? I'm prepared to accept (unsuccessfuly) putting out "feelers" is inufficient grounds for labeling someone a "collaborator", as User:FkpCascais himself likes to repeat (because Mihailović negotiated with the Germans on five occasions). What I am refering to are successful collaboration agreements, that is to say widespread Chetnik collaboration, that took place with Mihailović's approval, not ot mention his direct orders to subordinates like Djujich to (quote) "cooperate with the Germans". This is just the tip of the iceberg, Fainites, only stuff related to Đujić, there's a LOT more. --DIREKTOR19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Read Walter E. Roberts, pps 106-112. I raise the question, not because there aren't plenty of sources about Dujic, but because it seems to me that there is often very little interest in actually working on the articles as opposed to point scoring. I thought you people were supposed to be taking part in an ongoing mediation about Chetnik/Mihailovich collaboration. What's happening with that?Fainitesscribs19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not here to score points. I am NOT a pro-Partisan POV-pusher. I am not a communist. The difference between a "POV-pusher" and a non-POV-pusher are the sources. The guy who merely bases his position on sources is neutral. The guy who opposes him with no sources, is a POV-pusher.
Example: if the sources agreed and stated that Josip Broz Tito is GOD incarnate, and if I were to support that position - I would be a neutral editor. Anyone who opposes that sourced position would be a biased POV-pusher (Serbian or Croatian nationalist, whatever).
Now, allow me to explain why I feel passionately (and its obvious that I do), about beating the living daylights out of the Chetnik-praising on Misplaced Pages. Simple reason: its Balkans nationalist fantasy overriding sources, and it has managed to do so (without sources!) for the past several years. Croatian Ustaše-praising is a lot easier to deal with because those guys were open Nazi fans. I find it absolutely enraging to find that these Serbian nationalist editors succeed in overriding numerous, high-quality sources over and over again because none of the admins gives a damn. It may sound like I'm whining and/or repeating myself - but that is the ONLY real problem here. Do you think I would have these sort of troubles over at Talk:World War II, where Misplaced Pages actually functions? Now I will sound arrogant, but I'm basically the only guy I've met on Misplaced Pages that understands the course of this complex little guerilla war.
As for the fact that there is little article editing as opposed to "debating", I believe I already tried to explain that you cannot really edit in the Balkans without blowing one of the debating sides clear out of the water one way or the other, since they will simply oppose and revert-war over 90% of anything you do (regardless of whom you support). Believe me, I tried. See for example the Serbo-Croatian article, where only after long conflict have the nationalists been sufficiently beaten down to allow "normal" people to do some actual editing. That is how much effort it takes. --DIREKTOR00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Just 2 things:
"The guy who merely bases his position on sources is neutral.", unfortunatelly, that is not you. What you do is selectively use sources that feet you to make a point. There is a great difference.
"beating the living daylights out of the Chetnik-praising on Misplaced Pages", now saying this is quite ironical. I would rather say that it´s the other way round, you are pushing all anti-Chetnik propaganda the most brutal way, perhaps to compensate a bit your ocasional fighting with your own Croatian nationalists, since you both agree on this. You are basically bringing back the 3-side Yugoslav front into wp. You don´t archive results in fighting hateriot with more hateriot, but seems you´ll never understand fully the meaning of it. FkpCascais (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Selectively"? Yes. I "select" sources. You do not. You just talk. You see, Fkp, if people were just allowed to simply ignore sources just by talking and saying nonsense like "selective" or "biased" - we could ignore any source. Any source at all. The way how this works is that, when someone provides proof positive of a fact, you are required to provide proof negative disproving it - or stop talking. Or you should at least find some negative peer review, or a contradicting source, or something, anything.
You are lying to win the argument. You have been lying continuously for more than a year.
The sources are NOT biased. Show me a negative peer review if they are. If you cannot find someone who says the source is biased - it is not biased. And you should probably stop talking.
The sources are NOT chosen selectively. Show me a contradicting source if they are. If you cannot find a source that disagrees - the sources are not chosen selectively. And you should probably stop talking.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.Fainitesscribs13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, are you serious? You'll block me? My edits are being WP:STALKED and I am being provoked here. That is a fact. User:Timbouctou can "deny" it all he wants, but its perfectly obvious from his edits. Not that since the discussion on Talk:Croats was successfully concluded, he has followed my contribs to Talk:Yugoslav Front, Talk:Ante Pavelić, and Talk:Serbs of Croatia, strangely opposing everything I support. A simoultaneous involvement in articles where the discussion was either concluded or was going on for days already. In all instances he has continued to insult me at every opportnity "bullshit", "arrogant", "troll", "psychiatry patient", I mean just look at his posts. This is the very definition of WP:STALK.
I am also asking you to please read through his early posts on Talk:Croats. You will notice I had to put up with his insults and abrsasive behavior from the start.
In his very first recent post there ("Josip Broz Tito" section) he says I'm "blabbering something" in a very abrasive tone . I had not spoken a word to the guy.
I was frankly very much surprised at such a hostile attitude out of the clear blue sky. The tone of the discussion was civil, there was absolutely no bad blood. This is an excerpt from his second post:
"Btw I love the fact how DIREKTOR thinks that his reasoning somehow trumps the consensus gauged by a poll in which 15 editors voted and commented. I love it how he thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"
In his third post , again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
Fourth post: "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning."
Fifth post, "bully", "troll" .
This stuff goes on and on.. I invite you to have a quick read and compare personal comments, e.g. "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" followed by my post:
"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"
Even when I got blocked because of his uncompromising, hostile attitude, I still remained calm for the most part and was good sprited. And then after I agreed to all his proposed changes and implemented them myself, he accused me of "playing dumb" with his Brlić-Mažuranić photo, and the he "expects" to see it included. I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. I should have simply reported his behavior as soon as it started. Now you are about to treat us "equally".. --DIREKTOR17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Croats infobox
By wich order you added photos? Is it by year of birth? Because if so, then Ivo Andrić and Vladimir Prelog should change places.--Wustenfuchs12:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes date of birth was the idea, but I did not really check. So I got all but one right? Not bad :). As far as I'm concerned, feel free to tumble them around. Just be careful not to touch the space for the non-existent Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić photo or else thou couldst invoke the wrath of User:Timbouctou. :) --DIREKTOR13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems you should be scared. :) The man has succeeded where many have failed: he managed to insult my pants off, stalk me all over the project, and then get me essentially blocked for one month for getting upset because of it. --DIREKTOR21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You got one month? I don't know what his plans were, but to say the truth, he wasn't very fair, neither is he innocent, but what can you do...--Wustenfuchs21:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI
DIREKTOR - I have made a proposal about you at you ANI complaint about Timbouctou. I have come to the conclusion that your WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT tendancies have reached unmanageable proportions. It can't go on like this. I am proposing a one month topic ban. Sorry. The topic ban will relate to all yuogoslav/balkan articles, broadly construed. I am entering it on the record at the Arbcom page.Fainitesscribs14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, could you be so kind as to point me to where I can contest this? I assume I shall have to go to ARBCOM? I'm sorry, but the fact that the first posts by User:Timbouctou are, as has been demonstrated, incredibly aggressive and riddled with a plethora of provocations and personal attacks (as opposed to my own) is hard evidence of my having been provoked. His simoultaneous activities on other talkpages are also the very definition of WP:HOUNDING. These facts will not be glossed-over, certainly not if I am to be topic-banned. --DIREKTOR18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Here you are. You have a choice. As for ANI, you can continue with you complaint against Timbouctou if you wish. However, as I was about to take this step in any event it seemed appropriate to raise it there. In any event, all complaints by Balkan editors against each other are frequently pretty much ignored. Fainitesscribs18:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
We shall see. If this report is ignored I will post it again and try personally contacting a few people I know. One does not "bullshit" others and get away with it. But, on the whole, I do not think it is necessary for you to explain various aspects of Balkans-related Misplaced Pages editing to me. In fact, I will go as far as to say you should probably topic-ban the vast majority of Balkans editors under these criteria. I just seem to have been rather unfortunate to have met your acquaintance.
With your above post in mind, and considering the fact that the ANI thread in question is about the behavior of another editor and not myself, could you explain why exactly you posted my topic-ban and its elaboration over there? --DIREKTOR18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I did think about it. My proposed topic ban of you seemed to me to be germaine to the issue. Whilst i would agree that Timbouctou has been pretty blunt, it has been in no way the one sided affair you portray there. As I have said before - I do not know whether you really don't understand quite how offensive you are being or whether this is a front. In the circumstances it seemed appropriate to complete the picture. ANI is not a court of law. It is usual for admins to look into the whole picture and WP:BOOMERANG is a not infrequent result. I am not suggesting that policy applies in your case. I did not make my decision as a consequence of your complaint there. But I did think that admins ought to be aware of the larger picture. Fainitesscribs21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello yourself. A comment on the larger picture (as you see it) has a place there, but that is not what I'm talking about. As for my being "offensive", what I fear you do not quite comprehend is that (in the words of another admin) the Balkans are of Misplaced Pages is a "rather rough, unfriendly place," and (whatever you may think) more aggressive debating is commonplace. By your standards that you applies to me you might as well block or topic ban FkpCascais right now (not that I would want him blocked), certainly User:Timbouctou (the "bullshit", "idiot", "bitch"-man), to list the few you do know, and just about half of all editors that edit Balkans articles. In this context, I fully reject what I consider your own personal, rash view on my behavior.
I will add that I have been an editor, and a very productive editor, for the past four and a half years. I've had the plesure of making your acquaintance less than a month ago (if I recall correctly). You have displayed an ability to draw very rash judgement, not only about myself, whom you dismissed as "avoiding sources discussion" based on one talkpage encounter at Stepinac, but also about the entire nature of editing in ex-Yugoslavia articles. I frankly found it strange that you would label the entire topic of Wiki, with hundreds of editors, as unporductive by your personal standards, but I can see it fits the general picture very well.
In short, you have not been around the Balkans long enough to gain a good feel of the place. This is not to say I should be excused for behaving inappropriately, but 1) the fact that I was provoked and goaded should be taken into consideration, 2) I was stalked and harrassed, and 3) unlike other users, I do not consider myself to have overtly insulted anyone. In spite of your unexplained denial, I have clearly demonstrated, with diffs, that User:Timbouctou was the one who incited the conflict with overt, unprovoked insults for which he hopes to esape sanction.
Reagrdless of all that, in all objectivity you have quite obviously topic-banned the less offensive of the two conflicting parties. This much can easily be demonstrated with diffs to any impartial observer. Since you have involved yourself in the conflict by sanctioning me, I must ask what you intend to do about the other party? --DIREKTOR01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You wil note that I have not banned or blocked anybody for breach of WP:CIV orWP:NPA. One could indeed block large numbers of Balkan editors under these heads but I am fully aware that editing these pages is not for the sensitive or faint-hearted. I have not blocked people for losing their tempers and using naughty words, nor for accusing each other of various POVs. I have been around since early January 2011. What concerns me is the overall disruptive effect of your editing style and your ownership tendancies. I think your past success in seeing off nationalist vandalism has given you a false understanding of how things work. You may think you have not overtly insulted anyone but in fact virtually the whole tone of your discourse is dismissive, sneering, bullying and owning. If you really cannot see this I suggest you spend some time re-reading the last few months talkpage discussions. You may rest assured however, that I shall also deal with editors who think they can take advantage of your absence to do anything similar.Fainitesscribs12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
So.. you don't sanction people who in addition to an aggressive tone also use overt insults and slander (who provoked conflict), but you do sanction editors because of their aggressive tone (who were provoked into conflict)? And yes, I feel I have shown that it was not me who "started it", as it were. Seems to me almost like I should have been insulting Tim as well. Here's this guy who is not a nationalist, but arrives on Talk:Croats breaching WP:NPA left and right calling me a blabbermouth, my posts idiotic, etc, etc. (you saw the diffs) and yet according to you I'm being overly confrontational because I'm a nationalist vandal "war veteran" getting flashbacks? And why was I insulted? Why the slander? The man had a vote, nothing at all came of it for months, and all I did was dare to fix-up "his" infobox - so I'm the one with the WP:OWN issues?
I know exactly how things work. I didn't arrive yesterday. Admins have noted in the past that I should have been an admin myself by now if I wasn't the guy who "polices the slums", as it were. Like I said, these are the Balkans, and I just had the misfortune of having an admin basically follow me around for a month or so and scrutinizing my editing style in his head. Had half the editors here had such an "honor", they would be sanctioned by you even faster - because you would/could form the same opinion. "Wow, this guy fights whenever he discusses, could this be because these are the Balkans? No, it must be him, because I've been following him and the others I'm not so sure about. And after all, are not three or so discussions sufficient to form an opinion about anyone's editing style?"
You also seem to think that nationalist vandalism is a thing of the past? Not to exaggerate my "importance" or anything, but there'll be quite the party once its known I'm taking a vacation. As User:FkpCascais noted, there is a "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club of folks who would like to push their edits into articles in contradiction with actual facts and sources. Right now, FkpCascias and old Timmy-"Bull***t" are patting each-other on the back for succeding in provoking my famous temper and getting rid of me. And if you think somone can possibly edit here with those kind of people with the kind of kid-gloves you would be satisfied with, you still have not gotten the feel of the place. --DIREKTOR14:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi direktor, listen, honestly I think this is working just fine. This way you do what you most like (policing and patrolling articles) with admins filtering your actions. You say what you want and admins check if they are right or not, and only do the right ones. Hey, this way you seem like some mafioso or something, working behind the scenes... You still need to learn not to directly insult other editors on your talk page, good mafiosos have others doing that instead, and with more charm. You still can edit every other issues around wiki. I have football for exemple, it´s nice to refresh one itself from time to time. Oh, but I forgot, you hate football... Try womans synchronised swimming or Greco-Roman wrestling, oh, the last one better not, you´ll actually find polemics between Grecos and Romans, better stay with syncho. Well, if you came until here, you should know that is time to delete my comment, just remember, don´t be mad at me, after all I didn´t do anything to put you in this situation. Nice synch! FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Should I remind you this? You trolled me troughout my actual dialogue with the admin after even I specifically asked you 3 times not to post comments on my talk page! You can do it as well, just ask me to, at least I´ll respect it. Anyway, I did this comment because I asked you about the Timmy-"Bull***t" that you wrote just up, a total disrespect towards another editor, and you instead of deleting your comment, you delete mine? OK, whatever, have a nice time. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You do, of course, realize that should you and your friends decide to try and take advantage of my current sanction in order to avoid reaching a consensus on Draža Mihailović and Chetniks article, I will simply return after a month to restore the long-standing version on the disputed sections of text. That is, if you manage to sneak such edits past Fainites in the first place. Opportunist POV-pushing, has not in the past, and will never be a tool to actually enter permanent changes into Misplaced Pages articles. That is to say, do not assume you will under any circumstances be able to pass your preferred version as any sort of "stable consensus" or what not, this I can tell you a month in advance.
In hopes that you will not waste your energy in the article (and inded much more so on the talkpage) to enter edits you know full well are opposed by sources, I urge you to wait. That is all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to help the girlfriend practice synchronised swimming. I may yet come to enjoy this "vacation" of sorts.. ;) --DIREKTOR23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
But why you insist on this? (you already posted this identical comment on my talk page, and now here) Did I ever took advantage when you were blocked? And, what friends? P.S.: Haven´t you abandoned ship? FkpCascais (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this here because you removed it from your talkpage. As for the mediation, I am now, for one month, not allowed to participate whether I want to or not (to my understanding?), or at least, I can see no logical difference between my being involved in Balkans matters on an article talkpage or on the mediation talkpage?
But to be honest.. I don't really see the point. You and I are never going to agree simply by talking, or editing article sections. The only thing that has ever solved disputes on Misplaced Pages, one way or the other, were sources. The only way to solve the dispute, and I've told Sunray this, is to enforce WP:V policy. That is to say, we both must accept and follow the statements of the sources. The main two ways to challenge a scholarly (secondary) source, not only in Misplaced Pages but almost everywhere, have always been 1) negative peer reviews, and 2) contradicting sources. In addition, if a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not. This is only logical. And unless this level of common sense finds its way into this discussion, whether by force or editor agreement, the dispute may as well last another 10 years. --DIREKTOR18:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to drop in like this and I promise I don't plan to make a habit of it - but you don't seem to understand WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. The statement that "If a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not." is dead-wrong. Primary sources are generally considered as less reliable and we are supposed to rely on them with great caution and as little as possible. Secondary sources are the ones which Misplaced Pages is built on. You also seem never to have heard of WP:UNDUE which supersedes your idea of fact-checking. Primary source could easily be factually wrong and misused for a great many number of reasons and the main criteria for deciding what to include in cases of conflicting secondary sources is not how well one of them fits the likely compromised primary source but how widely accepted each one of their statements are, e.g. WP:UNDUE. Misplaced Pages is not an investigative organization and we are not here to play detectives. So using your logic if you had a German scholarly source published in 1942 saying that "no Jews were ever killed in Germany" and an American journal from 1945 which says "millions were killed" you would check which one is more right by comparing them to a court testimony from a Nazi concentration camp officer who said that "I never saw any Jews killed" and reject the American journal? That's plain crazy. Timbouctou (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I really don't want to participate in this discussion, but there are eyes here, and I would suggest that everyone take care to focus on content issues even here--some accusation above could be construed as personal attacks on editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Nuujinn, are we gonna discuss things where they belong, or not? Why you haven´t said nothing on the mediation when Sunray asked? FkpCascais (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
FkpCascais, Sunray said he would poll other editors about proceeding along suggested lines, and so far, Sunray hasn't polled me. I'm sure that Sunray will do so in good time. I'll reiterate, however, since I think you missed my point, so I will be more specific--personal attacks do not belong on WP, and you and Direktor have a long history of contention. Whatever your or his intent, I would suggest that you consider the value in being very careful in characterizations of others involved in these discussions, as one might find oneself misunderstood. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Come on Nuujinn, Sunray has called us long time now at mediation page. Anyway, we could and should really finish it. I think Direktor is missing my entire point about what I want with the article, but I hope you aren´t. I even said to use the separate "Collaboration" section before we even talked about it, remember? I honestly don´t know what the idea behind direktor about participating, or not, is, but he has been making problems instead of saying, lets finish this. Anyway, he played some strange poker with Sunray and I really think he went off limits. Sunray offered himself to facilitate things between us several times, and he allways refused in a childish "either my way, or not!" (say this is PA, but this is what happend in other words). Now, I´m not sure what is gonna happend, and Direktor already said no, and Sunray transmited that on the mediation page, anyway, the decision is not mine. However, I´m basically just there to try to obligate people to find balance between the good things and the bad ones. I´m not there, as direktor says, to glorify him, or anything. Because direktor exaerates, he makes discussions rather difficult, and since you acknolledge perfecrly direktors POV on this, I´ll rather discuss this with you and others, possibly without direktor to do his tricks. I mean, direktor is well capable of shooting his own feet, but that is also not my point, if you actually see what I pretend. We basically have the draft, and we only have some minor details to fix and agree. I would like us at least to agree with Sunray on begining to work on it, I mean, if you want, of course. FkpCascais (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I can't participate now for a month even if I wanted to, can I? The point is that I will particpate (when I may) if I can be assured that the discussion will be based on sources. That is not so say "my sources", but SOURCES (secondary, of course). Why do I (so arrogantly) insist on this? Because the fact that the discussion was never based on sources is the only reason why the mediation is so unproductive. And because far too much effort was essentially wasted because of this.
DIREKTOR: "Here's a source."
Fkp: "Oh I don't agree with that. The published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, is lying because I say so."
DIREKTOR: "Here's another source."
Fkp: "You are selectively representing sources (JJG taught me to say that)."
DIREKTOR (annoyed): "Here's another.. oh never mind.."
This kind of drama has not and will not solve anything. The fact that Nuujin wrote an entire article there can only be applauded as excellent editing, but the core conflict still remains. --DIREKTOR22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
First thing, why direktor, why you changed my post? () I said to Nuujinn as well how I prefer to discuss without you doing your tricks and I said that you could probably shoot your own feet, so even I was undecided on what is better for me (you to participate, or not).
Second, the issue is not you present a source and we don´t biblically repeat the words you present, the issue is the waight and the exact meaning of them, beside their place in the article (lead, section, anywhere?), so it´s not that I´m not accepting sources, as you say, but is you that actually claim the sources say something they actually don´t, and your only interess is to highlight them in the lead, because that is all you see, in a very complex person in a universe of complex events that happend.
I said that you manipulated and selectively used sources rom the beggining (go to owr first discussion and see by yourself). It´s actually nice that you remember us all how JJG also agrees with that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that so? Well I challenge your statement. I think you are not being truthful. I believe you are just saying that, and that you do not, in fact, accept sources. On Talk:Serbs of Croatia, for example, you never responded to the source:
On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radio message from Mihailović to Vojvoda Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with the enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative , Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945. Tomasevich, The Chetniks (p. 329)
So, just for example, do you "accept" that Mihailović ordered his subordinate Đujić to collaborate with the German military? I.e. that the Germans have him on record stating this? Or is the published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, "lying because you say so". (This is a published secondary source I am quoting, Timbouctou, not a primary one.) --DIREKTOR23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I´ll answer to you this (I promise) only if you restore my previous post, as I wrote it, without you selectively removing my words from it, thus changing its sense and what I really meant to say back there (similarly as you actually did with some sources. I´m not refering concretely to this one, don´t warry, this one you´ll have answered) FkpCascais (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean that part where you insult me on my own talkpage by commenting that I am likely to "shoot my own feet"? I probably did you a favor by erasing that. Weren't you warned by admins not to post such things just yesterday? Instead of restoring your personal attack I should report you, also to demonstrate (once more) how empty your apologies tend to be.
But you are changing the subject. Again. You do not really have to "answer", as I said numerous, numerous times: when faced with a source you most often simply ignore it. Recently you have done so at Talk:Serbs of Croatia, and, unless reverse psychology grants us a reprieve from this policy, you will do so now as well. --DIREKTOR23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
About the post, well, you are not doing me a favour, and you either remove the entire comment, or ask me to, but you removing the parts you dislike and leaving the others (including half sentences) doesn´t sound right. And btw, you shot your feet already a couple of times, so did I, so it´s not such a drama.
About the source, I still think you´re missing the point of the discussion: the point is what you wanna do with it? There is the difference. And btw, I don´t understand you at all, you rejected talking all this at the mediation ("officially" and with Sunray´s help) but you follow me around with this sources and espect me to discuss them with you? It´s like not wanting to play in the championship, but you wanna play several hard friendlies? FkpCascais (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you wanna play a number of friendlies just to see where are you standing, and if it is worth playing the championship... Come on Direktor, don´t you see I´m provoking you to participate? I don´t want you to afterwords say, well "that´s because I wasn´t there." FkpCascais (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire article needs to be represented in the lead. How would you represent the collaboration section in the lead? --DIREKTOR14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is something we need to work out, right? To be honest, I still don´t know, but all I know is that "your" lead from the article is not apropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This is Ramet The Three Yugoslavias (pp. 145-146) .
"Both the Chetniks political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogenous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. The Chetniks collaborated extensively and systematically with the Italian occupation forces until the Italian capitulation in September 1943, and beginning in 1944, portions of teh Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia. Moreover, as already mentioned, the Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac collaborated with the Germans from early in the war. (...)
For the Chetniks the war provided an excellent opportunity to put their program into effect, and between autumn 1942 and spring 1943 the Chetniks carried out slaughters of Croatian civilians in a wave of teror (...) Roatta , commander of the second army, protested these 'massive slaughters' and threatened to cut off Italian supplies and money if Chetnik depradations against noncombatant civilians did not end.."
Oh, Jesus Christ Direktor, you still don´t get it. I´m not gonna play friendlies here. No point. And Ramet, yeah, right... :P Btw, every sentence of your Ramet quote can easily be demostrated as nonsence and wrong... Italians feeling sorry for Croats (who they were most disagreing), etc. Is this your n10 Maradona? FkpCascais (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
"Play friendlies"? What does that mean? :) So what you are saying is...
User:FkpCascais: "Oh I don't agree with that. The published scholar, with excellent peer reviews listing detailed primary references, is lying because I say so."
This is what I wanted to hear, Fkp, to prove my point. Her statements are, incidentally, IRON-CLAD and supported by primary references. I will add that you have NO sources that contradict Ramet and/or Tomasevich in this, or any other assertion you have challenged, for that matter. I will not enter any discussion where you are allowed to ignore sources and Misplaced Pages policy in this way. --DIREKTOR15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No you're right, this is "the end" of the discussion. I've proven my point. All you do here is ignore sources and contradict them with your esteemed personal opinion. Quite the farce. This is what I mean, and this is what must be solved in the mediation - otherwise it is useless. --DIREKTOR17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It would apply unless you are given dispensation to take part in the mediation. Do you want to take part in the mediation?Fainitesscribs17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the mediation lasted for a year now.. And you can see above that discussing with Fkp and his pals might as well last for another five years for all the progress we will make. When a source is quoted to him he responds with nonsense like "Every sentence of your Ramet quote can easily be demostrated as nonsence and wrong... Italians feeling sorry for Croats (who they were most disagreing), etc. Is this your n10 Maradona?". What do I say to this, you tell me? Do I copy paste the source again? I can't do anything more. I must have posted dozens of quotes like the above, wasted hours, days, months of effort - to what end?
I would like Sunray's assurance that the discussion will be based on sources this time. I.e. that sources will not be simply "ignored". I can easily support my position as it is based on scholarly publications. What I cannot do is respond to arguments such as the above. --DIREKTOR17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem Sunray has is he is a mediator not an arbitrator. Mediators endeavour to find agreement between the parties. They can't decide. However, whether to go back into mediation is your choice. You are one of the parties. You can't say "I will only come back on condition.....". Fkps inability to produce sources shouldn't need hours and hours of re-posting. Once is enough. There are other participants though and a draft article I understand.Fainitesscribs17:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, I´m sorry, but I´m not gonna discuss, neither seriously respond to direktor, neither present sources, here, neither on any other page, but at mediation. Direktor was the one escaping from mediation for months at beggining, and he is the one escaping now again. And all I can say is that it is his (direktors) version protected in the meantime on the articles, so guess who wins with its lenght? FkpCascais (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Butt seriously, the main issue is what can be done here? I'm sort of like the "extreeeme" and "radical" member of the debate over there, for saying the exact same thing Ramet wrote. Verbatim. Its kind of weird over there. To put it in melodramatic terms, Misplaced Pages seems powerless to account for a situation where one side simply refuses to accept the sources and continues as though they do not even exist. To put it in cynical terms, noone cares enough to tell Fkp he can not dismiss sources at will (like he did just above, "and Ramet.. yeah right :P"). Seriously, you're the admin, what can be done? --DIREKTOR22:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The draft is an excellent piece of work, mostly a product of Nuujin's efforts. However, it is supposed to serve to "create an atmosphere of cooperation", and any points of contention that have anything to do with the issue that actually caused the conflict and is the subject of the mediation - were explicitly to be avoided. The draft will do a lot of good to the article, but it does not and will not solve anything. It all boils down to a simple issue: did Draža Mihailović collaborate, or did he not collaborate. This is the subject of the mediation, and it has not even come close to being setlled. --DIREKTOR22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You've been involved in the mediation for a long time. You ought to know whether you want to carry on or not. All I'm saying is - if that's what you want to do, then I can lift the ban for that sole purpose. I can't advise you on the mediation though. I'm not part of the mediation. I don't mean to be unhelpful but mediation is a good faith enterprise and is not for outsiders to mess with.Fainitesscribs23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes yes I get it you don't want to get involved you just want to know about my involvement.. The Ancient Mediation (yes its Capitalized now) and I are like a married couple. I constantly believe she will change but she disapponits me time and again. Do I file for divorce or give it one more try?
Ok, I will participate. However, a disclaimer (not for you but in general): I will only participate in debating Draža Mihailović's (and the Chetniks') collaboration. I will only post wahta the sources say... again, and demand accordingly that the statement "Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration" is entered ino the text. I will post what the sources have to say, its all I can do. Fkp will start "dismissing" them, of course, but that kind of nonsense I will not debate. As I said to Sunray above, these are not my "conditions", I am not being arrogant, I am simply sick of wasting my energy. --DIREKTOR23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This is Ramet on p.8: "Draža Mihailović entered into open collaboration with fascist Italy and cooperated with the Germans on certain occaisions as well. Mihailović was quite open about the fact that he regarded the anti-Axis Partisans, rather than the Axis occupation forces, as his principal foe."
All these sources, the above, the ones you've seen, and plenty more, were apparently "insufficient" to support the single statement that "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis". The irony is that they were all listed in the article in support of that statement the day Fkp first arrived and started removing them repeatedly, one year ago. The best case scenario from this mess is that they and the text they support will be restored to the article after a year of "dismissal". In my view, this is extreme disruption, an enormous waste of editor energy highly detrimental to the project, and should be sanctioned as such. --DIREKTOR22:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources
Sorry to drop in like this and I promise I don't plan to make a habit of it - but you don't seem to understand WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. The statement that "If a source has its statement supported by primary sources, it supersedes a contradicting statement from a source that does not." is dead-wrong. Primary sources are generally considered as less reliable and we are supposed to rely on them with great caution and as little as possible. Secondary sources are the ones which Misplaced Pages is built on. You also seem never to have heard of WP:UNDUE which supersedes your idea of fact-checking. Primary source could easily be factually wrong and misused for a great many number of reasons and the main criteria for deciding what to include in cases of conflicting secondary sources is not how well one of them fits the likely compromised primary source but how widely accepted each one of their statements are, e.g. WP:UNDUE. Misplaced Pages is not an investigative organization and we are not here to play detectives. So using your logic if you had a German scholarly source published in 1942 saying that "no Jews were ever killed in Germany" and an American journal from 1945 which says "millions were killed" you would check which one is more right by comparing them to a court testimony from a Nazi concentration camp officer who said that "I never saw any Jews killed" and reject the American journal? That's plain crazy. Timbouctou (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
@Timbouctou, you do not understand Misplaced Pages policy, nor do you understand how sources function in the real world in general. I have never ever used primary sources as references, nor did I ever suggest that they should be used as such.
Now please read carefully. We are not allowed to use primary sources, that is naturally true, because to base anything upon them is original research. "Original" research is perfectly fine in the real world, of course, but in order for it to be verified, you essentially need to have it published somehwere. Upon publication, the research becomes a secondary source. Secondary sources are the best possible sources, and are naturally based on primary sources, which they have to list as references in the published work. We are ideally supposed to use secondary sources in articles, ideally with their statements properly referenced.
We cannot study and compare primary sources themselves, but we are free to favor one secondary source over another based on whether the statement in question is refernced or not. An unreferenced statement in a secondary source is a statement of (professional) opinion, valuable on its own, but not to be compared with a referenced statement.
I have not stated that we should use primary sources. What I have been saying is that if two secondary sources conflict upon a certain claim, and if one of those secondary sources is directly supported in its claim by a referenced primary source (while the other is not) - then the secondary source with the primary source should be followed in this instance. The unsupported secondary source, which is essentially the author's unsupported opinion, can debateably be mentioned regardless - but with attribution, e.g. "Professor X states this and that", if the author is an acclaimed expert for example. --DIREKTOR21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A news article you might like
Hello,
Just stumbled upon this article in Vreme, which you will probably like. Since it is an op-ed, it won't qualify as a source; still, I hope it will provide you some enjoyable pastime during your topic ban. I'm a bit inclined to say "I told you so", though it would be severely assholish so I won't. :P No such user (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's it. It's good to see not everyone in Serbia is incapable of picking up a book on this. Around here that is the impression. I mean you could probably fill a swimming pool with sources and primary evidence explaining in no ambiguous terms that Draza was an axis collaborator. Which is the blunt historic fact. I'm basically dealing with folks who grew up (very recently ;) on the myth the author talks about. Indeed, in the words of Sabrina Ramet, it is more than a little disapointing that these folklore-village myths endure in spite of the historiography. In the end though, they'll suffer the Wikifate of creationist bull.
About Serbs of Croatia infobox, I don't have attention to promote Chetnik, not at all. What I do here is I wish to add persons who are notable, no matter are they Chetniks, Ustaše, Partisans or what ever they can be, or are they convinced criminals or just accused to be criminals, or are they good chaps, I don't care about that, I care only about their notability. I told same thing ther at Croats, any you are familiar with that. As you could see I also added Rade Končar, because I thought he is one of the 8 notable persons for the infobox, but ther was Momčilo Đujić who is more notbale and more mentioned at Google Books and he has more views. This is my oppinion, nobody needs to agree with it. For me, fascist, communist, democrat, all the same (for infobox only ofcourse :D ).
And also I need to mention, Đujić is one of the so-called "collaborationist fraction" of the Chetniks, they don't like him... :/ Never mind,
Let's just avoid war criminals then shall we? Apart from that I do support impersonal inclusion criteria. You may also want to note that there was in fact no collaborationist faction in the Chetnik movement. Collaboration is demonstrably a policy of the entire movement as a whole. It is easily demonstrated that dujic collaborated on orders from Draza Mihailovic himself. --DIREKTOR18:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(WP:TALKSTALK) Citing: "Let's just avoid war criminals then shall we? Apart from that I do support impersonal inclusion criteria".::A trouth diamond of POV. You do understand that calling Đujić "war criminal" is the most personalization possible? FkpCascais (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I have already shown that Dujic collaborated with the Axis. He is also responsible for mass ethnic cleansing campaigns in Dalmatia. You, of course, "disagree" with sources. We have nothing to discuss, Fkp, there really isn't anything more I can do than post published scholarly sources. I don't know what more to tell you, and as for me, I am not interested in the opinion of some random Balkans guy on the Internet. --DIREKTOR21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
We are both random Balkans guys on the Internet. The difference is that I do not push my opinion. I never say anything if I had not previously read about it. --DIREKTOR04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
War criminal or not... that's not the subject. DIREKTOR, I know ther weren't factions in Chetniks, but that terminology is used by their supporters, you know that. I know basic things about Đujić, he was Dinara Division commander, and his talks about killing all Croats and return os "Serbian lands" an' all, and yes, he was subordinated to D. Mihailović. Well, he isn't a saint, we all know about his doings in 1990s, but still.--Wustenfuchs00:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As for images, don't worry about quality. You just post whomever you want and I'll fix up and crop the photos, when I can of course. If someone is older than 100 years, you can easily find other quality photos on the net and upload them. --DIREKTOR04:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Real Life
Good luck with the finals by the way. From memory, medical students can't wing it like the others do. They have to know it all. Fainitesscribs18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It helps to give up on any dream of having a social life in your twenties.. But hey, who needs their youth right? :D --DIREKTOR18:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Director: Difference between revisions
Add topic
In a 2007