The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Serbia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Yugoslavia Template‑class

Template:Collaboration in Yugoslavia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information:   Associated task forces (nations and regions): Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force

This template was considered for deletion on 6 March 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

I am proposing to rename this template into Template:Second World War in Yugoslavia thus being possible to include all intervenients into the template, and to avoid the inconvenient misinforming presentation that comes from the inclusion of resistance movements in it. Similarly, this solution was also found as adequate in the infobox at Yugoslav Front article. I´ll wait to see if there are no objections, otherwise I´ll list this template in the moves request. I will also find appropriate to hear other possible name proposals to this template. FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don´t want to take much time to everyone here, as I suppose that all involved know well my position on this. I would like to propose a change in the situation the Chetniks and Draža Mihailović are found in this template, right next to the official Axis allies. The difference between them in enormous, and the template should reflect that. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we in agreement that the facile label "collaborator" should not be used to describe Mihailovic? If nobody objects, I will remove Mihailovic. BoDu (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. -- Director (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DIREKTOR, do you remember that you said we should not use the facile label "collaborator" to describe Mihailovic? BoDu (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not in the article's lede, perhaps, but here certainly. The point is this person collaborated, and we shan't play word games to avoid listing him alongside other persons who collaborated as well. If its the "label" that bothers you, why didn't you change the heading rather than removing the person? Would "Notable collaborating individuals" suit you better?

Please stop edit-warring. The references in there are not just for show, the template is sourced. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue it too complex to place Mihailovic among "collaborating individuals". BoDu (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...by your estimate, I take it? No, actually its not particularly complicated. This is not the place to transfer the old dispute, but here's one example [1]. -- Director (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I said that "this issue it too complex", I was not talking about issue whether Mihailovic approved some arrangements with the Axis. I do not deny it happened. My point is that Mihailovic was engaged in resistance activity too, so to place him among "collaborating individuals" is misleading. BoDu (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except it isn't misleading as Mihailovic is certainly among individuals who collaborated. The degree to which each individual collaborated is explained in their respective articles. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mihailovic is among individuals who engaged in resistance activity and collaborated. It is misleading. BoDu (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all stop reverting. You managed to sneak this edit in and prior to that edited your post in such a way so that if you did not receive a response that it would somehow assume consensus. [2] Both this template and this template exist. So enough of this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mihailovic was placed among collaborators without consensus. Anyway, in my opinion, both this template and this template should be deleted. The best solution is creation of new article such as Template:Greece during World War II. This new article would include section called "Controversial cases" where Mihailovic will be placed . BoDu (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do tell me why you removed Mihailovic from this template and this template from Mihailovic's article, but left the resistance template untouched leaving his name and the template in Mihailovic's article.

Your proposal is absurd and unnecessary. The current templates work perfectly well as long as they are used together and not one without the other as you have done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is irrelevant why I left the resistance template untouched leaving his name. It is absurd to have 2 templates. BoDu (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is absolutely relevant when you are the one that's creating the "deception". You removed the collaborationism template and left the resistance template. That is incredibly hypocritical of you and that is what's misleading. It's ridiculous for you to come here and claim that this template is misleading.

Your proposal creates more problems than it solves. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have no proof what is the reason why I left the resistance template. It's absolutely ridiculous to place Mihailovic among people such as Ante Pavelić, Milan Nedić, Dimitrije Ljotić etc. My proposal is the best solution because it creates an template which shows that Mihailovic was a controversial case. BoDu (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your actions show your intent and reveal how you treat one template, which you despise, differently from one which you like. Mihailovic did indeed collaborate. It was not on par with Pavelic and others, but no one is even arguing that. It's not a "controversial case" as you claim - the sources are clear on this. He did both (to various degrees) and these templates depict that. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You comment is just an allegation. No proof. Mihailovic engaged in resistance activity and collaboration, so he is undoubtedly an controversial case. You want to have Mihailovic on the same list as Pavelic, Nedic, Ljotic etc, and that is against common sense. BoDu (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "common sense" perhaps, but its not up to you, is it? The sources listed in the article support the position. The sources you copy-pasted from here (and never read a single word of) do not support the proposition that Mihailovic was a "resistance commander" in anything more than name.

You removed Miahilovic as a person involved in collaboration, and you introduced a nonsense copy-pasted template listing him as a "resistance commander". All without consensus - and now you're edit-warring to keep your nationalist POV in. That is not how we work on these articles. You have no sources, you've not contributed in any way with new information - you're just POV-pushing.

I've changed the entry from "collaborators" to "persons", as is standard on a number of similar templates, and I've moved Mihailovic to the back of the list. Do you find that more acceptable? -- Director (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you remember you said that Mihailovic was a leader of resistance movement that collaborated with the Axis? You are lying that I introduced the template listing him as a "resistance commander" (it was done by User:FkpCascais). I find unacceptable that Mihailovic is listed on the Yugoslav Axis collaborationism template. BoDu (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then there is no room for compromise at all. I find it "unacceptable" that you removed his entry without consensus. The difference between our two positions is that yours is based on your personal opinion (nationalist sentiment), and mine is based on those damn sources cited in the template. Are you aware that this is an online encyclopedia and not an outlet for your creativity?

BoDu, rest assured will add that edit-warring never ever works, and you will not have your way through force. Your POV removal of sourced information is against policy, and the sources will be restored. -- Director (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not answered my question: do you remember you said that Mihailovic was a leader of resistance movement that collaborated with the Axis? BoDu (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You answered none of my questions either. You are not "in charge" of this discussion, simply because you have the amazing ability to click the undo button over and over again.

Yes I do remember that. So why did you remove his entry from the category of people connected with Axis collaboration? I am not inconsistent, BoDu and you will not somehow turn my own words against me. -- Director (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Mihailovic engaged both in the resistance and the collaboration, it's misleading to put him among the collaborating persons. BoDu (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. If he engaged in both, he should be placed in both - with a note in each that he engaged in the other. -- Director (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's excessive to have 2 templates. Mihailovic should be placed in new template, created to be like Template:Greece during World War II. BoDu (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, FkpCascais should not have created his copy. -- Director (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template about Axis collaborationism in Yugoslavia should not have been created too. I repeat, my proposal is to create new template like Template:Greece during World War II. BoDu (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you noticed we already have one? -- Director (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can alter the Template:Yugoslav Front to look more like Template:Greece during World War II. BoDu (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do what you like. Just be sure I will from now on revert everything you do on Wikipedia if its not done explicitly by consensus.

Incidentally, where is the "consensus" for your edits?

-- Director (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I added a material without consensus and you think it should not have been added, then remove it (we will try to build consensus after that). BoDu (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We may "discuss", but I cannot promise I will agree very often. And its not about "adding material without consensus", its about editing without consensus. That is to say, both the "adding or removing of material without consensus". And you're removing material without consensus that's been in the article, sourced and all(!), since it was created. How do you justify your non-consensus edit? -- Director (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I explained on my talk page why that editing is in accordance with the WP:BRD. BoDu (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By your nonsense convoluted "interpretation" of WP:BRD, its ok to revert virtually anything. All of Wikipedia content was added at one point or another, and the vast majority without an explicit consensus in support. WP:BRD applies to when you're reverted relatively immediately, not years afterwards. Very few people would have the gall to suggest something so ridiculous as WP:BRD giving one the license to remove virtually anything they like. Still less people would suggest it grants them leave to WP:EDIT-WAR. You're just a POV-pusher on an agenda, looking for excuses.

Also:

• You're ignoring my question with regard to WP:EDIT WAR
• You're ignoring the fact that there is a WP:CONSENSUS currently against you - three users have reverted your Serbian nationalist vandalism.

-- Director (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look I don't care anymore, I'm not going to revert your vandalism again - have it your way. Ignore sources and consensus, push your preconceptions by force, show your colours. I have a high fever and I'm sick to my stomach, I'm withdrawing. -- Director (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I answered on my talk page. BoDu (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why reply on your talk page? If you are wishing to BRD discuss this template, this is the place to do it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok BoDu, seeing as you've directed me back here and assuming you are going to respond here rather than on your own talk page, I'll play. I personally think Template:Yugoslav Front should be changed to Template:Yugoslavia during World War II myself, so long as it becomes an overall template incorporating the Invasion of Yugoslavia which is not currently in Template:Yugoslav Front. So, if we were going to go down that track, where in your view would DM fit on a revised Template:Yugoslav Front that looked like Template:Greece during World War II? They have a section for Collaborators in the middle, so what about there? What alternative heading would you use? While we're at it, what about people like Djurisic, Nedic and Jevdjevic? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that Template:Yugoslav Front should be changed to Template:Yugoslavia during World War II, incorporating the Invasion of Yugoslavia. In this case, I think we should create new secton named "Controversial cases" where Mihailovic, Djurisic, Jevdjevic can be placed. Nedic should be placed among "Collaborators". BoDu (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the idea of having a controversial cases section if only the cases in it were truly controversial, however, I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder. On what basis would you suggest Djurisic is a controversial case in terms of collaboration? He made a collaboration agreement with the Italians in Montenegro in March 1942, participated in Operation Weiss alongside the Italians, was promoted to lieutenant colonel by Nedić after his release by the Germans and was placed in command of the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps, and was subsequently awarded the Iron Cross II Class by the German commanding general in Montenegro. He's about the least controversial Chetnik of all in terms of collaboration. He was a collaborator, with both the Italians and the Germans. Before I would agree to any new template, we'd need to clarify who goes in the Controversial Cases section, and the reasons why they would be put there. It's not a long list, surely. Otherwise, this just ends up looking like a way of sanitising unpalatable Chetnik collaboration by saying their collaboration is 'controversial' when reliable published sources say it's not. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BoDu, so we should just use your opinions as a counterweight to the sources? I see. I feel like I've heard that before. Mihailovic isn't even "controversial", not really - we know he did collaborate. Its only his status with regard to the label "collaborator" that might be considered "controversial", but that's it. The other two were just blatant, direct collaborators. Its a testament to your bias that you even suggest that their status is "controversial". They may be "controversial" among the public in Serbia, but really, its only the sources we're concerned about here. Do you have any sources whatsoever that would suggest any of these people are "controversial". Even if you did (and you do not, since you "don't do sources"), I would not support a "controversial" section, since we can simply add a note to their entry in the "People" section. You do think they're people, right?

@Peacemaker, I do not support the merge of the "Yugoslav Front" with the Invasion of Yugoslavia. The two are in many ways strategically separate conflicts. -- Director (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Direktor. That does not surprise me. You appear to have your heart set on 'National Liberation War', the logic of which escapes me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peacemaker, is it necessary to include Djurisic at all? If the answer is no, I think we should not waste time discussing his role in the war.

@Direktor, I have got source which says that Mihailovic is "one of the most controversial figures of the Second World War in Yugoslavia.". BoDu (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Djurisic is notable as one of the major commanders of Chetniks in Montenegro (and in fact provided a safe haven for DM for some time when he had to leave Serbia and was based near Kolasin), and he was awarded the Iron Cross (pretty unusual). He's notable alright, which is why there is an article on him. Because there is an article on him, and Jevdjevic, and Ilija T-B and the other major Chetnik commanders, and they are notable Chetniks, then they should go in the template. Djurisic, Jevdjevic and T-B were all collaborators. I see your point in relation to DM (it is complex alright, and Lampe and others say as much), but these other characters are not controversial. They collaborated and there are screeds of reliable published sources that say so. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milan Nedic is not controversial because he was strictly collaborator. Were Djurisic, Jevdjevic and T-B strictly collaborators, or they engaged both in collaboration and any form of resistance activity? BoDu (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not as far as any sources I've read. If you are suggesting they resisted the Axis, provide a source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peacemaker, I don't have "my heart set" on anything. I'm the one that actually moved the Yugoslav Front article to its current title, back when my command of the sources wasn't at the current level. Afterwards I checked with the sources I accumulate for other purposes, and found that "Yugoslav Front" is a very uncommon term, virtually without usage. About 7,000 sources refer to the conflict as the "National Liberation War": I merely seek to correct my own mistake by applying the Wikipedia policy and the sources.

I will say again, the Invasion of Yugoslavia was an entirely separate, brief conflict, that was part of the German Balkans Campaign. That's where it belongs. They are separated by time (almost six months), by the nature of the fighting, by the different warring factions involved. It was only well after Yugoslavia was occupied that the "Yugoslav Front" actually opened. But this is not the place to discuss this. If you really have decided that a merge is in order, would you open a discussion on the subject at Talk:Yugoslav Front?

@BoDu. I am talking about his collaboration. This template is about collaboration. Provide a source that refers to his collaboration as being "controversial". Not he in general. -- Director (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peacemaker, I found a source which claims that Jevdjevic fought against the Ustashas (Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks. Oxford University Press. pp. 159–160)

@Direktor, the section "Controversial cases" is for persons who engaged both resistance and collaboration. Do you need sources which say that Mihailovic engaged in resistance? BoDu (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well first of all, there is no "controversial cases" section. Secondly, we are discussing collaboration, not resistance. Before I would even consider such a section for a collaboration template I would require evidence that the collaboration of someone (or some organization) is "controversial" in sources.

The Chetniks in the Italian occupation zone of the NDH collaborated very closely with the Italians. Jevdevic was the Chetnik leader most closely associated with the Italian occupation. He openly supported it. The fact that he also slaughtered Croats on the side all over Dalmatia, and provoked an Ustase response, does not make his collaboration with the Italian occupation authorities "controversial". Nor would I characterize that as "resistance" in the first place. The Italians were the occupation in his area of activity, and far from "resisting" them, he was their best buddy. -- Director (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My proposal is to delete both this template and the resistance template, then alter Template:Yugoslav Front to look more like Template:Greece during World War II with the section "Controversial cases". Jevdjevic fought against the Ustashas, so he was not strictly collaborator. BoDu (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoare 159-160 says absolutely nothing of Jevdjevic fighting the Ustase. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, mistake. The page is 308. BoDu (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, that doesn't discuss him fighting the Ustase either. That discusses his switch to a pro-Muslim stance and him urging Italian annexation of BiH. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BoDu provide the full paragraph and the page, please. That is if you're not lying, cheating, and misquoting sources. -- Director (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BoDu has mysteriously disappeared. As I said, you don't do sources BoDu, that's apparently not your thing. Worry not, you can still defend the honour of Serbia without discussing by simply edit-warring to no end. -- Director (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mysteriously disappeared? You think I can use computer all day, don't have more important things to do? Anyway, in article Dobroslav Jevđević there is the following statement: "In autumn of 1942, despite having a strong hostility to the Muslims, Jevđević took a radically different approach from other Chetnik leaders and favoured collaborating with them against the Ustaša and the Partisans and forming Muslim Chetnik units". This information is attributed to Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks. Oxford University Press. p. 308 BoDu (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Worry not, you can still defend the honour of Serbia without discussing by simply edit-warring to no end." Wow, the "Honor of Serbia", you say that like you dont know how honerable Serbia has been throughout the ages. Serbia was not collaborting with Nazis, Draza was just using them. Serbs were always the most honerable when it came to "brotherhood and unity", you can tell because a majority of them joined Tito's Partisans even though Tito never had the Serbian peoples best interests at heart. Is that was Serbia gets? Fighting for the freedom of the former Yugoslav countries, only to have those same countries stab them in the back 50 years later. DIREKTOR is anti-Serbian — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok... so to get back on topic, if Jevdjevic favored collaborating with the Bosnian Muslims against the Ustashas that makes his collaboration with the Axis 'controversial'? In what way? How is that relevant to whether he collaborated with the Italians, for example? Is that it? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you read my comments? What did I say on 25 February 2012 at 14:46? BoDu (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd better answer, Peacemaker... otherwise I shudder to contemplate the consequences. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

g'day again BoDu. Having taken a deep breath, and having re-read what you typed at the date/time you mentioned, I fail to see what I 'missed'. Is your contention that because Jevdjevic attacked Ustashas at some point that it follows that he was not a collaborator with Axis forces? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not controversial did Jevdjevic collaborate with the Axis (he did collaborate). Jevdjevic is a controversial case because he also fought against the Axis forces. Capito? BoDu (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what Axis forces and when? Do you have a source? Every Chetnik fought the Ustashas to defend their people, but that doesn't mean he fought the Axis. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capiamo tutto, ma non si, BoDu. If it is not controversial that Jevdjevic collaborated with the Axis, that should conclude this discussion. -- Director (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peacemaker67, do you need a source that claims Ustashas were part of the Axis forces?

@DIREKTOR, Jevdjevic is a controversial case because he also fought against the Axis forces. End of the discussion. BoDu (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes. The NDH government were themselves collaborators and co-belligerents, an Italo-German quasi-protectorate, but never a member of the Axis alliance. How is his collaboration controversial. He collaborated. That's it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, don't you love this "End of discussion" stuff JJG and BoDu have going :). BoDu, bring a source if you contend that Jevdevic was "controversial", your fanciful declarations on who you judge is "controversial" do not really concern anyone. They are WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That's the first level where your argument is flawed. The second level is that, even if you were actually to show he as a person were "controversial" (and not just some nonsense OR conclusion of your own to that effect), even then the fact that he collaborated is not disputed at all. Resistance does not "erase" collaboration, and this template does not offer overall assessments on Jevdevic's role in the war. It merely mentions him because he collaborated. And he did. "End of discussion.." -- Director (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, Mihailovic shouldn't be there : his position was much too complex for him to be labeled simply as a "collaborator" and to be put next to Ante Pavelic, of all people. I suspect that Direktor would freak out if a template "Resistance in Yugoslavia" was created and included Mihailovic : yet it would be justified. The whole controversy about this template is pathetic, and the template itself is pathetic in its current state : while it does have some usefulness, it should be simply merged with the other template about the whole WWII/Yugoslavia situation so we wouldn't waste our time on such a ridiculous issue. 08:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)~

And here's JJG with his straw-man pretend games. Noone has "labeled" anyone as a "collaborator", and the template in no way suggests a comparison with Ante Pavelic. Maybe you would be happier if DM were moved to the back alongside the other Chetniks listed therein?

While I have no memory of any positive "resistance" action Mihailovic participated in, I'm willing to grant that it would not be an explicit error to list him under the topic of "resistance". However, such a template created to prove the aforementioned rhetorical point, would be nothing more than a form of childish "retribution". Resistance in Yugoslavia, as opposed to the French resistance for example, was a relatively "simple" phenomenon. Two organizations, with only one actively resisting in any notable (non-"marginal") manner. Whereas collaboration was more complex than in any other occupied country of the war. Four political entities, four occupation zones, three political organizations, and no fewer than eight relatively autonomous military organizations. That's without counting the local Muslim, Albanian, and Yugoslav German SS divisions, and without going into the autonomous formations like the Black Legion, and sub-divisions like the Ustase and the Home Guard. Sorting them out is the point and purpose of this template, whereas a retaliatory "resistance" template would overlap completely with the Template:Yugoslav Front. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"here's JJG with his straw-man pretend games" : no "straw-man" here, I am just being neutral. On Template talk:WW2InfoBox, Direktor kept waving the "straw man" expression to hide the facts that he had no arguments whatsoever. Keeping insulting the other parties and maintaining the sneering and insulting attitude that resulted him in being topic-banned for one month won't bring him anywhere. "French resistance for example, was a relatively "simple" phenomenon" : that shows some ignorance of the subject. "I have no memory of any positive "resistance" action Mihailovic participated in" : while I am far from a Mihailovic admirer, I think whoever says that hasn't read anything on the subject. "The template in no way suggests a comparison with Ante Pavelic" : uuuhhh.... words fail me. I won't even bother anymore to comment on Direktor's arguments. Seriously : I don't think there should be separate templates for "resistance", "collaboration", etc on the Yugoslav front topic. The situation is complex enough to be adressed by a single template, so everything should be merged. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am ceasing my participation in this offensive exchange, and will submit a report. Please consider this your required notification. I will, of course, participate in reverting any non-consensus changes to the template. -- Director (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do the French have to do with anything? Focus on the subject at hand. Simply because Pavelic is also in the template does not mean that anyone is comparing Mihailovic to him. This is a silly statement and you are trying to remove Mihailovic on the basis he's "not on par" with him. Also, what is your exact position on the matter? You want to remove Mihailovic from the collaboration template, but you have added him to the resistance template. Now you state there should be one sole template to cover everything. The Yugoslav Front template was supposed to be that "single template", but has failed miserably in doing so. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The French have nothing to do with the subject, it is Direktor who brought them in. "Simply because Pavelic is also in the template does not mean that anyone is comparing Mihailovic to him" : well, actually, yes. I did not say that the topic of Mihailovic and collaboration should be adressed, but if we want to be fair then he should me mentioned on both resistance and collaboration templates. Indeed, the Yugoslav Front template should be reworked in order to be more effective. I don't know why it "failed miserably" but we can certainly find a solution. Anyway, the collaboration template fails even more miserably in ~giving an accurate view of the historical context, so I don't think it can be accepted either. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peacemaker67@, here is the source

Direktor@, Jevdjevic fought against the Axis forces (Ustashas). My proposal is to delete both this template and the resistance template, then alter Template:Yugoslav Front to look more like Template:Greece during World War II with the section "Controversial cases". In the section "Controversial cases" we would put persons who were not strictly collaborators. As Jevdjevic fought against the Axis forces, we should not place him in "Collaborators" section because he was not strictly collaborator. End of discussion. BoDu (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An illustration book and not even a page number. Hah that's rich. BoDu your opinion is no substitute for scholarly sources and resistance does not somehow "nullify" collaboration. Also, enough with this "end of discussion" nonsense.

JJG, picking Pavelic, the worst offender out of the bunch, and stating "hey he's not as bad as this guy" is not an argument. The criteria for inclusion is to have collaborated with Axis forces. They both collaborated and to varying degrees. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

perhaps the answer is to list the collaborators on separate lines by ethnic group, ie Croats, Serbs, Muslims, Slovenians, Macedonians, Montenegrins. There are categories for this already, such as 'Serbian Nazi collaborators'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

even better, what about regrouping them so that political people are grouped with the political organisations and military people are grouped with military organisations? Thus, we change the group 'military organisations' to 'military organisations and leaders', and have a subgroup for 'Chetniks', in which we include DM, Jevdjevic, Djurisic etc. Pavelic goes with the 'political organisations and leaders' group, along with his cronies, etc. It wouldn't unnecessarily complicate the template, and it would be clearer who goes with who. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some individuals would need to appear twice. Example: Djurisic under the Chetniks and Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. Ljotic under ZBOR and the Serbian Volunteer Corps. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is that a problem? It would make the template clearer. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest we simply add a note on Draza Mihailovic (and perhaps the Chetniks on the whole), using sources to explain that inclusion in the template does not preclude resistance activities in addition to collaboration on the part of a couple entries.. however "marginal" in scope the latter might be. -- Director (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Chetniks were only collaborating with the nazis until they could receive aid from the allies. The Royal Yugoslav Army didnt like the nazis, they just had no other choice, the german reprisals were brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i deleted chethiks from page because we have no reliable source to say that chetniks were part of this collaboration. books made by communist historians are no reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuHu22 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day HuHu22. You don't get to decide that a book is unreliable or not. The Chetniks article has substantial examples of Chetnik collaboration. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what? do you have any reliable book not written by a communist that say that chetniks were collaboratos? HuHu22 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll play. What book exactly is it you are suggesting is written by a communist? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

play what? do you have any non-communist book to show here? HuHu22 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so let me get this straight. You are saying that all of the references listed were written by communists? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nobody can read your references. show non-communist references that can be read by other. HuHu22 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]