Talk:Pavle Đurišić

Proposal for assessment as A-Class

G'day all, You will be pleased to note that Pavle Đurišić was recently assessed as A-Class by WikiProject:Military History. I propose that this article be promoted to A-Class in WikiProjects Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. I request the support of two uninvolved editors from each WikiProject, in accordance with the general A-class assessment criteria. Please discuss under the relevant WikiProject subsection.

WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina

I think that article meets all of the A-class criteria, and was promoted as such in the WP Military History, so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be promoted in the WP Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Wustenfuchs 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia

There are improvement opportunities presented in my review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Assessment/Pavle Đurišić but I think that this article meets A-class criteria.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

an understandable act of mass terror

@Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to explain this edit and why did you described an act of mass terror as understandable?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

certainly. Tomasevich describes it as such in two ways. He uses the phrase 'easy to understand' and 'understandable'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

the statements are made in the context of exacting revenge for Chetnik killings earlier in the war, as per the text I added at that point in the article. I will not insist on its inclusion, and am not here to defend the statement, merely that it is what the source says and that the editor that deleted it actually deleted sourced content, inappropriately in my view. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure that you correctly interpreted Tomasevich?

You wrote: "The killing of the Montenegrin Chetniks by the Partisans at Kočevski Rog was an understandable act of mass terror ..."

Tomasevich wrote:"brutal conclusion of the civil war is understandable ..."

• On the same page Tomasevich mentions "the quisling forces and the Chetniks" but you did not mention the "quisling forces" which were murdered at Kocevski rog together with Montenegrin chetniks. Why?
• Will you please be so kind to present the quote from pages 765 or 766 in which Tomasevich claims that murders in Kocevski rog were "an act of revenge"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I am sure that I correctly paraphrased Tomasevich. With respect, you are pulling phrases out of Tomasevich without the wider context of the paragraphs in which they appear, and even ignoring the next paragraph. If I was not WP:AGF and assuming that you have not quite worded your question right, I might suggest that this is another example of your tendentious questioning on talkpages. I must point out here that you do not always understand the intricacies of English, it is clearly not your first language, but it is mine. Mine is also Australian English, so there are already differences between the English you have learnt and mine. That much is clear from our regular miscommunications. However, I will respond assuming your question is asked in good faith. What possible brutal conclusion to the civil war do you think he is referring to? In the very next paragraph he refers to revenge as being a factor in the brutal conclusion to the civil war! The desperate battles as the collaborationist forces tried to get to Austria and avoid surrendering to them (knowing what their fate was likely to be)? Of course not, they were still battles, not mass killings. Blind Freddy [1] could see that he is describing all of the Partisan killings of collaborationists at the end of the war (Ustase, Chetniks, Slovene Home Guard etc etc), which he describes as both 'revenge' and 'brutal political surgery' (both on p. 766), and he explains why. As far as why I have not included all the others killed, well pretty clearly the subject of this article is Djurisic (and the Montenegrin Chetniks insofar as to place his activities in context). Djurisic wasn't even killed at Kočevski Rog, and the information has been inserted to explain what happened to his soldiers. Few articles about military commanders explain what happened to their soldiers, and neither should they as it is not always necessary or even appropriate. I considered your suggestion a reasonable one in the circumstances, and included it, but that is all that needs to be included in an article about Djurisic. They were killed by the Partisans, partly in revenge for what they had done and partly as a way of getting rid of them so they wouldn't come back to bite them later. It's brutal and horrible, but that is what happened, and that is what the source says the motivation was. He also says that the actions of the Partisans at the end of the war were 'easy to understand' and 'understandable'. The places for a fulsome explanation of the fate of the other collaborationist forces killed by the Partisans in the same place are the Kočevski Rog massacre article and the Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II) and Montenegrin Volunteer Corps articles, surely? Once again, I do not understand what you are trying to get at. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

July uprising

The role of Đurišić in July uprising is still eluded.

Milovan Đilas says that "DjuriSic had distinguished himself during the July uprising in the battle at Berane, where the worst fighting took place." link.

If Đurišić's enemy (Milovan Đilas) admits that he had distinguished role in the worst fighting during uprising then his role was really significant and claims that Đurišić was "... a hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" are not mistake of biased book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

it's not 'eluded'. Please look on wiktionary for the meaning. I hope you mean that 'the article does not properly cover the important points regarding Djurisic's involvement in the July uprising'. I would usually question the use of Djilas, given his first person involvement, but given he is unlikely to have written anything positive about the enemy unless it was incontrovertible, I think he is an acceptable source given he corroborates Kurapovna. Thank you, I will add him as a source and add the 'distinguished role' information. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Đilas was indeed involved in the events. It is better to use Kurapovna and "hero of the July uprisings in Montenegro" expression instead of "Captain Đurišić distinguished himself".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I have used Djilas as his language is neutral ie he used the word 'distinguished' and if he says it, then he certainly must have done that. Kurapovna's language is unencyclopedic and potentially biased/POV, ie whose 'hero' was he, and why? Having 'distinguished' himself does not beg that question. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Đurišić subordinated to the communists

Unresolved

The text of the article says:

• In mid-July 1941, there was a general uprising against the Italians, led by the communists. and
• A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.

Does it mean that Đurišić was subordinated to the communists during this uprising? If not maybe it should be clarified because the existing text implies that Đurišić and his forces were subordinated to the communists. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War (1914)

• "However, the Italians regained control over all towns and communication routes within six weeks, assisted by Muslim and Albanian irregular forces who were motivated by atrocities committed against their people by Serbian and Montenegrin troops during their withdrawal from northern and central Albania after the Balkan Wars."

Above mentioned assertion about events in 1941 is supported with "Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War (1914)" published in 1914.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

addressed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No its not. You used statements published in opposition communist newspapers Radničke Novine (Workers newspapers) which are cited in the report. The International Commission stated that "The Commission was not able to verify those statements...".

You created another problem with the following sentence you inserted into the article:

• "These irregulars remembered the Montenegrin occupation of Albania in 1913."

It is absurd to justify Albanian collaboration with Italians with six months Montenegrin occupation of Shkoder taking in consideration that Italia occupied all of Albania in period 1914-1943 (with short breaks).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• "However, the Italians regained control over all towns and communication routes within six weeks, assisted by Muslim and Albanian irregular forces. These irregulars remembered the Montenegrin occupation of Albania in 1913,[4] when in the final phase of the Balkan Wars, Serbian and Montenegrin troops had committed atrocities against the Muslim and Albanian population.[5]"

WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The above presented text is synthesis of published material to advance a new position. Precisely to imply a conclusion that Albanian and Muslim irregulars assited Italian forces to regain control over Berane and other towns in Montenegro because of the Balkan wars events. That is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Balkans Commission material and the tag. I will re-visit later. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Commemoration controversy?

Unresolved

There are two sentences which explain why this memorial should not be constructed:

1. The Association of War Veterans of the National Liberation Army (SUBNOR) objected to the construction of the monument saying that Đurišić was a war criminal who was responsible for the deaths of many colleagues of the veterans association and 7,000 Muslims.
2. The following month the Montenegrin government forbade the unveiling of the monument stating that it "caused public concern, encouraged division among the citizens of Montenegro, and incited national and religious hatred and intolerance."

This section has title which includes the word controversy. But there is nothing controversial in this section. A group of people wanted to erect memorial in Berane dedicated to Đurišić. Why? Nobody knows. There is no explanation why this memorial should be constructed. It is carefully explained only why it should not be constructed. I apologize if I am wrong, but I don't think that position of people who wanted to construct this memorial is presented according to WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't make hide nor hair of the Google Translate of the glas javnosti article, I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He "spent some of his youth at Berane" and "had also established his wartime headquarters there". Those reasons are given in the Glas Javnosti article. The article also says that the initiative came "from the part of the Serbian nation which has had to endure communist crimes that began 1941 and that have continued to this day." I don't know if that's Scekic's (head of the committee for the memorial) reasoning or just sensationalism on the part of the newspaper. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

another reason we might want to take care with the glas javnosti article is that they chose to carefully crop the picture of Djurisic to remove General Biroli... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not propose to progress this comment into an edit unless a WP:RS for the motivation of the people who planned the memorial is located. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Iron cross controversy

I think that this article does not present real controversies about Pavle Đurišić like Iron cross controversy. There are claims that information about "Iron Cross" award is forged. Those claims say that it is not only forgery, but also absurd taking in consideration that Germans actually imprisoned Đurišić in 1943 and held him in captivity until he escaped.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"There are claims." Bring reliable sources to the table not just some hearsay. Also Wikipedia is absolutely disinterested in your original research. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it is "my original research"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is until you bring WP:RS that support that claim. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

@PRODUCER and Peacemaker67: How do you know it is "my original research"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be trolling... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually AntiD, it is original research until a WP:RS is produced supporting the 'claim'. You have brought the claim here, so you need to back it up with a WP:RS. I am aware of the 'claim' but have never seen a WP:RS that supports it. Without a WP:RS, there is no controversy and even the fact that there is a 'claim' can't go in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be original research only if no reliable, published sources exist to support what I wrote. Labeling my comment as original research without giving me any time to present sources was not polite nor constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And your comment was not constructive, because you were raising an issue without a WP:RS for it. I could go to any article and make a comment on a conspiracy theory about that subject and it would not be constructive. You have no source, you raised it, so your comment is WP:OR until you do, and with respect, I will be ignoring it until a source is provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina fleeing from ustasha terror

Solved:All three major grievances against the Italians explained as per source.

"The Montenegrins quickly developed grievances against the Italians, particularly regarding the expulsion of Montenegrin people from the Kosovo region and Vojvodina, but also due to loss of territory and revenue." The text of the source, page 139, says that there was an influx of 25,000 refugees into Montenegro. The source says they "constituted a great economic burden". Out of that number only 5,000 were from Kosovo and Vojvodina. Rest of them were from other parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, like "refugees fleeing ustasha terror in the border areas of south-east Bosnia and Herzegovina". It is wrong to state that grievances against Italians were caused "particularly regarding the expulsion of Montenegrin people from the Kosovo region and Vojvodina" because it is not what source says. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC) good point, addressed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Yes it is addressed, but maybe not completely. The first main grievance is more or less properly explained, but I think it would be good to clarify other two main grievances: The source says: "page 139:Another grievance was the loss of the territory....near...Scutari... Plav... Gusinje, and especially the greater part of Kosovo region, all of which Italy included into "Greater Albania"...". Now the article does not present this important information about the territory awarded to Greater Albania. This is important information not only for the context of the relations of Montenegrin people (which includes Đurišić) with Italians, but also with Albanians and Muslims. A third major grievance was caused by Italians who took money from population (Yugoslav banknotes of bigger nominations of 500 and 1,000 dinars) under excuse they were "unlawfully put into circulation" (page 139:"A third major grievance had to do with stamping of old Yugoslav banknotes... Many Montenegrins were economically greatly damaged as a result (though apparently banknotes of all denominations had been put into circulation legally.."). Therefore I propose to clarify the context of the relation of Montenegrin people (and Đurišić) with Italians, but also with Albanians and Muslims by adding a sentence like: Italians annexed into Greater Albania territory which previously belonged to the Montenegro (Ulcinj, Plav, Gusinje and especially the greater part of Kosovo) and economically greatly damaged many Montenegrins by taking away from them all Yugoslav banknotes of bigger denominations).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Further info added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem, the split between communists and nationalists

Within six weeks after uprising started on 13 July 1941 Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. Here is what article says happened then (end of August, beginning of September 1941):

• "A split then developed between the communist leaders of the uprising and the nationalists that had participated.[7] As a result, the nationalists, including Đurišić who was popular in his own Vasojević clan of northern Montenegro, withdrew into the hinterland.[8]"

Tomasevich's work was used to support the the first sentence. Here is what Tomasevich wrote on pages 140-142:

• "In late October 1941, Colonel (later General) Draža Mihailović, the Chetnik leader in Serbia came to the conclusion that his principal enemies were the Partisans, not the Axis forces. From the beginning of 1942, this attitude was clearly reflected in Montenegro in relations between the Chetnik and separatist forces on the one hand, and Partisans on the other."

I think that the source is not properly interpreted. The text of the article could mislead the readers to believe that a split between communists and nationalists in Montenegro developed until August-September 1941, after Italians regained control over towns and communication routes. That is not correct. The source explicitly says that it happened at the beginning of 1942. It is important to be precise with the timeline here because events of this period are very important for understanding the full context of the future events. Đurišić withdrew into the hinterland not because of the split between communists and nationalists, but because of Italians who captured towns and communication routes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the source, it doesn't explicitly say that was when the split developed, it says that was when Mihailovic's attitude towards the Partisans was reflected in the relations between the various forces from the beginning of 1942. If you are suggesting some additional information could be added to clarify when the split occurred in Montenegro I accept that, and will add something shortly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

When Đurišić arrived to Belgrade in 1943?

Solved:Information that Đurišić arrived to Serbia in November 1943 is added to the article.

Pavlowitch says, page 195: "A new development was Đurišić's arrival in Serbia in November." I propose to change the existing sentence: He was sent to a prisoner of war camp in Galicia from which he later escaped, reportedly in August 1943, and after some time reached Serbia. into: He was sent to a prisoner of war camp in Galicia from which he later escaped, reportedly in August, and in November 1943 reached Belgrade. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC) No issue there, happy with the change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Source says Belgrade. He maybe reached some northern part of Serbia earlier since he traveled from Poland to Belgrade on his feet.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Accept that, what source have you got that says he got there on foot? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC) This source. Don't you agree that it is hardly possible that he bought a car and drove it from Poland. Anyway he reached Serbia before he reached Belgrade. Since the source says Belgrade it is better to stick to it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC) what source, Neubacher? He is a primary source, as he was involved in releasing Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC) No. Pawlovich.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) The source you linked above is Neubacher, isn't it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I have added the ref to November, but it says Djurisic arrived in Serbia in November, and also that he made his way to Belgrade, it doesn't say he arrived in Belgrade in November. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, you are right.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To Slovenia or to Greece?

Solved:Information that Đurišić wanted to retreat trough Albania to Greece added.

The text of the article says: From the time Đurišić joined Mihailović in northeastern Bosnia, he was very critical of Mihailović's leadership and argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia. Pawlovich says (page 241): "Đurišić wanted to go to Greece trough Albania, but Mihailović told him to prepare for an Allied landing, the return of King Peter and the formation of the national government." Maybe Đurišić indeed argued strongly for all remaining Chetnik troops to move to Slovenia when he already reached northeastern Bosnia, but I think it would be good to present his initial position which was in favor of Greece instead of Slovenia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Communists wanted to carry on with the revolution while Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising

The text of the article says:

• "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced, with the nationalists having closer ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims. Ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania combined to make Đurišić and his Chetniks impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region."

The source (Pawlovich, page 78) says:

• "The differences in the outlook between communists and nationalists were particularly pronounced in northern Montenegro, with its traditionally close ties with Serbia and its "frontier mentality" towards Muslims. It was there that ustasha manipulation of the Sandžak Muslims and the flight of the Orthodox from the area annexed to Albania was mostly felt. Whereas communists wanted to carry on with the revolution, by turning against 'traitors', 'kulaks' and 'spies' (particularly if they were Muslims), Djurisić and his fighters were impatient to go on with the uprising by marching into those districts and turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

I think that the source is misinterpreted especially because the source emphasize that:

1. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against the working class enemies, especially if they were Muslims
2. Đurišić wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians.

Therefore I propose to properly interpret the source and to reword above mentioned paragraph to match what source actually says. Rewording maybe can be done like this:

• "In northern Montenegro, the distinction between the communists and nationalists was more pronounced. It is a region with close ties with Serbia and a 'frontier' mentality towards Muslims where ustashe manipulation of the Muslims in the Sandžak and the expulsion of Serbs from the areas annexed by Albania was mostly felt. Communists wanted to carry on with the communist revolution aimed against class enemies, especially if they were Muslims, while Đurišić and his Chetniks wanted to go on with the uprising by turning on the Muslims and Albanians."

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you will, like many others, get into too close paraphrasing with the source. If you believe this is justified, you should make those edits yourself and let the assessors decide If you have paraphrased the source too closely. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that you might stray into POV territory if you emphasise that the 'communists wanted to carry on with the "communist" revolution',. That is not what the source says. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The source does not say "communist revolution". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded this section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Family details

Was his father's name Ilija?

Source:

• "Pavle Đurišić, Lovro Hacin, Juraj Špiler" - Radoje Pajović, Dušan Željeznov, Branislav Božović - Centar za informacije i publicitet, 1987, page 12 (Na početku ovog stoljeća Pavlov otac Ilija)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't help you there, can't read the lingo and so have no idea whether that is a reliable published source or not. If you believe it is, please insert it into the article with an inline citation in the same form as those already used. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliability always depend on the context. This source is far from being reliable regarding WWII activities of Đurišić, but when it comes to the name of his father, I think it can be accepted, since there are many other web based sources which confirm that his fathers name was Ilija. Serbs have custom to name their sons against their fathers or ancestors. Taking in consideration that Đurišić's son name was Ilija that is also additional confirmation.

There is no mention of Đurišić's son Ilija in this article. I think this article should be better researched before A class nomination because A class biography article about 20th century person should contain family details, like family origin, name of the father, mother, son.... After reading this article I was sure that Đurišić was not married and had no children. Maybe many of sources about his family are not RS for his WWII activities, but that does not mean they should not be used for such simple indisputable assertions about his family. A paragraph within early life section would be enough, together with a couple of sentences in the aftermath section. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very strange that you are suggesting that this article is not ready for A-Class because we don't know the names of his father, wife and children. He is not notable for having had a wife and children. Inclusion of basic information about his upbringing has been done, and in fact was done during the GA nomination at the request of assessors. In all the texts I own that mention him, not one mentions his family at all. The information that has been obtained by PRODUCER is all in Serbian. Personally, if Google Translate is any measure, this article you have suggested as a source for this information is questionable at least. I fail to see the necessity of including chapter and verse about his family, unless the decisions or actions for which he is notable were made because of his family (and the sources make that connection). Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don' agree with you. This is biography article. I already explained this point to you when we discussed Đurišić's occupation. The topic of this article is not "Collaboration of Pavle Đurišić with Axis forces" or "Notable activities of Pavle Đurišić". This is biography article about Pavle Đurišić. His family is important for his biography. You can check it by looking at any of FA biography articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that PRODUCER has added the father's name. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

According to some websites he had a daughter Ljiljana (1937—1943) and a son Ilija (born 5 July 1940). His son Ilija have two sons. Paul (Serbian: Pavle) (born 26 December 1965), named after his grandfather, and Marko (born 26 May 1969). Đurišić's son, who left Yugoslavia in 1960, and grandsons live in Illinois, USA. Đurišić's wife also left Yugoslavia in 1964 and lived in USA where she died in 1981. I believe there are some more reliable sources than websites which can be used to support this information.

There are claims that his father was also military officer who participated in Balkan Wars and First World War. If it is true that his father also had a military career it should be presented to the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which websites? Unless reliable sources are brought to the table this certainly can't be included. Also Pajović mentions none of this. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. That is why I wrote: I believe there are some more reliable sources than websites which can be used to support this information. There is a book "Забрањени очеви у исповестима своје деце" which allegedly contains the text of the interview with Ilija Đurišić in which he presents some details about his family. Unfortunately there is no online version. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Karađorđe's star

Solved:Information about Karađorđe's star being awarded to Đurišić is added to the article.

There are claims that Pavle Đurišić was awarded with "Karađorđe's star". Books: Tragom plave lisice, Đorđe Ličina, Centar za informacije i publicitet, 1977 - p 253 link The heretic: the life and times of Josip Broz-Tito, Fitzroy Maclean - On Mihajlovic's recommendation Major Djurisic was fortunate enough to be awarded the'Karadjordje Star by the Royal Jugoslav Government in London. Oslobodilački ili građanski rat u Jugoslaviji 1941-1945 - Miloš Minić, Agencija "Mir", 1993 p.149: После Дурмиторске операције Михаиловић је именовао Ђуришића за команданта Црне Горе, Санџака и Боке, краљ Пе- тар одликовао га је Карађорђевом звездом, а Хитлер 1 1. октобра 1944. немачким Гвозденим крстом". My translation: After Durmitor operation Mihailović appointed Đurišić as commander of Montenegro, Sandžak and Boka, while King Peter awarded him with Karađorđe star..... Important note: Miloš Minić was the prosecutor on the Trial of Draža Mihailović. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I'd be happy to use Maclean, he also has some information about Djurisic being commended by Radio Belgrade which I will add. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC) added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross vs Karađorđe's star

Information about Iron Cross is mentioned in the lede and two times in the main body of the article which describes the events, while information about Karađorđe star is mentioned once in the aftermath section. Why? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Iron Cross award is highly notable, but it is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the main text. It also appears in the caption of an image. There was no information about when he was awarded the Star of Karageorge so I could put in the right section chronologically, so I put it in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the image. I forgot about it. That means that this is even more against WP:NPOV because mentioning Iron Cross in the caption of an image means that there is additionally a collage picture of two pages regarding the Iron Cross.

Karađorđe's star is also very notable award. It is against WP:NPOV to give so much more weight to information about award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to him by Yugoslav government.

There was information about when it was awarded. After Durmitor operation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as their relative notability, the Order of Karageorge was awarded to quite a number of Chetnik commanders, but only one Chetnik commander I am aware of was awarded the Iron Cross, which makes it more exceptional (ie it is a unique award to a Chetnik, unlike the Star). I listed the Star first in the infobox because it is standard practice to include indigenous awards before foreign ones, and that is as it should be. Your NPOV accusations are wrongheaded. The policy says 'editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' My point is that it is mentioned once in the lead, once in the text, and given the exceptional nature of the award, the text is supported by the image. I would not be against including an image of the entitlement document for his Star if one was available, but I am not aware of one. The Iron Cross is fairly and proportionately represented when you take into account the uniqueness of the award. I see no bias in supporting the text with an image. And by the way, which Durmitor operation are we talking about and where is the source that says what date the award occurred? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was military operation conducted in August 1944.

Jozo Tomasevich mentions it in his work "The Chetniks" (page 410): "At the end of some two weeks of fighting, in what Yugoslav historians call Operation Durmitor (otherwise the Montenegrin phase of the German Operation Rubezahl)...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's WP:SYNTH if you take a source that says it was after that Durmitor operation, when Djurisic was also involved in a significant operation on Mt Durmitor in May 1942. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that Iron Cross award is of exceptional nature. The article about Iron Cross award says that millions of this crosses were awarded. Some sources (including wikipedia article) say that 5 million EK II (the type allegedly awarded to Đurišić) were awarded. On the other hand, Karađorđe's star was very rarely awarded only for exceptional merit. Even if it is undisputed that Đurišić ever received it (which is not) I still believe that it is against wp:npov to give so much more weight to information about Iron Cross award allegedly given by Axis powers comparing to the information about award given to Đurišić by Yugoslav government.

I propose to remove lede sentence and image collage with its caption.

That way iron cross information would remain in the infobox and once in the text of the article, like information about Karađorđe's star. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to produce reliable sources which dispute that he received the Iron Cross. Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross. Many Chetnik commanders received the star and off the top of my head this included Mihailović, Jevđević, and Pećanac while on the other hand no other received the Iron Cross. Given the nature of the subject I believe the current version is neutral. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your proposal, Antid. I have articulated my reasons above, and agree with PRODUCER. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hell even some of the sources you brought to support that he received Karađorđe's star also mention that he received the Iron Cross." - Yes, it is this source written by Fitzroy Maclean who says: According to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. That way he express his uncertainty that it was true.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that some sources that Maclean was aware of said that he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks

Solved:Information about Case Black added.

Jozo Tomasevich emphasizes that one of the aims of Case Black was disarming of all Chetniks. It is very important information that can help explaining the (missing) context of the events related to the capture of Đurišić. Right now the capture of Đurišić and his Chetniks on 14 May 1943 is presented without any context, like it was some kind of mistake, with this sentence: Đurišić and the Chetniks did not resist their capture, and there were no casualties. Source: "The Chetniks" (page 251 and 255, note 164): "While the Partisans and the Chetniks were locked in the battle during the early spring, the Germans prepared their Operation Schwartz, the aim of which was the disarming of all Chetniks and the destruction of all Partisans in Montenegro and Sandjak" "Proof that Operation Schwartz finally evolved almost exclusively into an operation against Partisans, though it was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks, is best indicated by German estimates of losses inflicted upon the two groops:...estimated that the Partisans had 12,000 killed and 1,500 captured, and the Chetniks only about 3,000 captured and disarmed." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC) good point, added context. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Biroli-Djukanovic Agreement

Currently there is a paragraph that generally covers Djurisic's activity in March 1942; however there is a more detailed page in Tomasevich 1975 stating that at the time there was a "comprehensive" Italian-Chetnik agreement formed and signed by Biroli and Djukanovic assumed to be known by Mihailovic. It specifically details the collaboration between the Italians and Chetniks in Montenegro which included about 1,500 Djurisic's men being officially recognized and organized as a "flying detachment" and much more. See page 211 for more info. This should help add more context especially for the Biroli and Djurisic pic. I'll add this when I have the time unless someone else wants to have a go at it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've got it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

let me know if you think I've covered it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll assess the matter in detail tomorrow. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the "new" Nationalist Committee of Montenegro, a simple sanction of an "already existing committee headed by Djukanovic" (Tomasevich (1975), pg. 211), and its purpose should be included. Djukanovic was "the senior commander of all Chetnik forces in Montenegro" (Tomasevich (2001), pg. 142) and Djurisic was "aligned" to his committee (Milazzo (1975), pg. 85). -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I rearranged the addition to make it clear it was part of the agreement. I also added the open arrangements of mutual understanding. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good additions. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Monument

Solved:Information about the monument of Đurišić in Libertyville is already added to the article.

There is a monument dedicated to Đurišić. It is erected in St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville, Illinois. It can be seen at this movie, 2:21. It is mentioned in this source: Traveling on the Road 21 – Milwaukee Avenue, you can not but to see the monuments to general Draza Mihailovic and his military commanders vojvoda Momcilo Djujic and vojvoda Pavle Djurisic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Already added. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Google Book links

Should the book references have Google Book links if the book is unable for viewing? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ah, now that one I do not know. Maybe MOS tells us? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At GA they suggested they be consistent i.e. either all should have them or none. MOS only addresses the matter in the citations themselves stating: "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view." WP:PAGELINK Presumably Google Book links that aren't available for viewing likewise shouldn't be added in the references section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I get that. It is a bit counter-intuitive to make them all the same in the ref section. Then even if the book is available on preview, they have to manually search for it. I think it should be url linked if preview is available, and not if not. I might ask Ian Rose what the expectation is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There was at least one discussion at WT:FAC before my time as a delegate re. using GoogleBooks links, if available, for references. There is no requirement to employ them, nor is there a rule against them. If the GoogleBooks url is to a previewable work (as opposed to snippet view or no view at all) then you can feel free to employ it if you choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See also, Further reading, External links

I noticed there is no See also, Further reading nor External links section in this article. It might be a good idea to create such sections because the topic of this article is very complex and it would be useful for the readers to point to the articles, sources or websites where it is possible to get more information about the topic of this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe below presented source written by Montenegrin historian and University professor could be added to Further reading section:

• Kovačević, Branislav (1993), Od vezirovog do zidanog mosta : tragična sudbina crnogorskih četnika u završnoj fazi rata : 1944-1945 (in Serbian), Belgrade: Službeni list SRJ, ISBN 9788635501895, OCLC 32928143 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see an official gazette of FRY written in Serbo-Croatian as being useful neutral "further reading" for English Wikipedia. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you against my idea to create above mentioned sections?

An official gazette of FRY is the publisher. It is of course not neutral because it contains description of the very important events by one of its participants and can be presented as such.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PRODUCER regarding the 'Further reading' source you have listed, and note that less than half of all featured articles have such a section. The 'Bibliography' section is pretty comprehensive for the subject matter. But I'm also unsure what you would put in a 'See also' section. I have been through the article a couple of times, and nothing jumped out at me that wasn't already linked in the article. I'm open to suggestions though. Any 'External links', like 'Further reading' should meet WP:RS, and I just haven't seen anything in English I think adds value. There is a lot of unsourced stuff on the web about the man, and I think we'd have to look long and hard to find anything useful that isn't already represented. Personally, I think this article has been very thoroughly researched, even if I do say so myself, and pulls together a lot of scholarly publications into a coherent whole. I don't necessarily oppose creating these sections, but I just don't see the need. The article is comprehensive. I'm sure it will be improved incrementally over time as more work is published on the topic. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that my idea to add Further reading section is bad. The bibliography section is not enough for readers who would like to know more about the topic of this article. There are many other works on Đurišić. Some of them may not be reliable, but with appropriate note about their unreliability they could also be informative to the readers.

I don' agree that "this article has been very thoroughly researched" and that "The article is comprehensive.". There are to many important details missing, like family members information (the article does not contain information about his parents, that he was married, that he had children...), or reasons why some people wanted to build a memorial complex dedicated to Đurišić, and many other reasons. There is FA criteria which says that article should be stable before getting FA status. That was not the case with this article which was not stable, and had many nonresolved issues on the talk page and probably even more which would be presented before this article becomes stable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, which clearly was not shared by the FA team. Whilst I accept that there were some improvements to the article as a result of your questions, much of it was tendentious and lacking even the most minimal support from WP:RS (Iron Cross, song about him, family, etc etc etc). If I was not WP:AGF I might think the stream of questions was some attempt to either skew the article away from NPOV or derail the FA nomination. With all the instability that resulted... But I'm sure you wouldn't do that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The status of this article is not most important. It is the quality of this article. Article based on unreliable source can not be FA. What is tendentious is insisting on RS when it comes to Further reading section and in the same time using unreliable sources in the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

or insisting that something is disputed but not providing one shred of evidence that it is. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

Unresolved

According to RSN discussion Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One review is not the sole factor to determining a source's reliability or its use. The claims in the article that are attributed to Cohen's book have citations to primary sources in the book and, as even that review indicates, "no falsifications of history appear in its pages." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was Cohen's book which supports very important (and disputed) assertion about Iron Cross. Not primary source like "note a" says. It is wrong to attribute Iron Cross assertion to primary source (which nobody saw) just because it is mentioned in unreliable Cohen's book.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What WP:RS disputes his Iron Cross? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is Ignoratio elenchi, the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issues in question. Instead of fallacies it is better to deal with issues. The issues in question are:

1. unreliability of Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
2. referencing the primary source to support assertion which was in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. How is it disputed? You answer a question for a change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No. You address the issues. The Iron Cross controversy is subject of discussion in another section. I find your comment "You answer a question for a change" unnecessarily harsh.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is over. If you feel you can make a comment stating that it is disputed (above), refer to a section where you produced no WP:RS for the supposed dispute, then insist that YOUR question be answered, this clearly is going nowhere fast. There has to be mutual acceptance of the need for the discussion, and as far as I am concerned you have abjectly failed to bring anything to the table to dispute it. Maclean states that 'according to some accounts he later received the Iron Cross from the Germans'. Maclean's book was published in 1957, Cohen's in 1999. Cohen references several things to that paragraph in his book, including Kostic, Parezanin and Stefanovic as well as the primary source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You overlooked the point. I will underline it: This section is not about Iron Cross dispute. This section is about two important issues of this article: using unreliable source ('Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War') and referencing the primary source to support assertion which is in fact supported by secondary (unreliable) source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN due to its perceived slanting of facts to suit a conclusion (my summary). However, as PRODUCER has already pointed out, the review in question stated "no falsifications of history appear in its pages.". So unless you have a WP:RS that disputes the Iron Cross (ie indicates that there is a falsification in Cohen, specifically about the Iron Cross), there is no basis for removing that citation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "the book as a whole was considered 'unreliable' at WP:RSN". It should not be used to support assertions in this article. All assertions based on this work, including microfilm assertion which is also based on Cohen's work, should be removed from this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what was said. If you are so sure that is what was meant, then feel free to take this specific issue back to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what you said. I quoted you. You and PRODUCER insisted on RS many times on this talkpage, just search word reliable and look for yourself. Now, when the source you used is found unreliable you insist on using it, although you refused to use many other sources just because you claimed they are not reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)