Talk:Uprising in Montenegro (1941)

  Resolved

I have raised these issues on the DYK nomination page for this article as I believe the NPOV one in particular makes it ineligible. The sources have been cherrypicked, and the actions of the Partisans/communists are being blamed for certain events when in fact, a better representation of the available academic sources shows a more general set of causes. In another case the source does not support the material at all. I will explain.

In the lead and in the body, is states "The defeat of communist forces in Pljevlja combined with their continued terror campaign significantly contributed to the split between communist and nationalist insurgents in Montenegro" and "During the uprising a split developed between the insurgents. There were two main reasons for this split: a major defeat of Partisan forces during their attack on Italian garrison in Pljevlja and terror conducted by communists." This is sourced from a summary chapter by Tomasevich in a 1979 book in Serbo-Croat. No translation is provided. Elsewhere, the editor has used Tomasevich 2001 p.142, which states, "The defeats inflicted by the Italians on the insurgents and the realisation by some that the leading elements of the uprising were Communists led to a split in the resistance between the nationalist..." No mention of the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja, just the more general "defeats inflicted by the Italians on the insurgents", no mention of "terror conducted by communists", just a realisation "that the leading elements of the uprising were Communists". The editor concerned has in fact used the very same page of Tomasevich 2001, but has chosen the untranslated Serbo-Croat source instead of one we know he/she has access to. This is classic POV.

A second even more worrying example, is "After initial success of the uprising Communists took charge of the situation. Their bloody rule antagonized many people in Montenegro" which is sourced to Roberts 1987 p.186. There is nothing on that page that supports the material.

I will shortly commence a complete source check of this article to establish if there are more issues of this type, but in the meantime, I believe it would be inappropriate for the article to be accepted for DYK. It also needs a thorough c/e for grammar, spelling and punctuation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The number of page describing bloody rule was 40, not 186. I corrected it. Within next week I will address your concerns.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Acknowledged. There will be plenty more from what I can see, including the omission from that same page of Roberts that only the communists gave determined resistance to the Italian counter-offensive. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• "The editor concerned has in fact used the very same page of Tomasevich 2001, but has chosen the untranslated Serbo-Croat source instead of one we know he/she has access to. This is classic POV." - Every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh and violates AGF. There is nothing wrong with using 1979 work of Tomasevich instead of his 2001 work that has completely different name.

Per WP:NONENG it is necessary to provide translation only when quoting a non-English source. No policy requires translation of title and the gist of the section just because non-English source is used. "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." If you are concerned about particular source you are free to request translation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is translation of the text written by Tomasevich used to support the following assertion:

• The article: "During the uprising a split developed between the insurgents. There were two main reasons for this split: a major defeat of Partisan forces during their attack on Italian garrison in Pljevlja and terror conducted by communists."
• The source: "The conflict between two groups of accelerated because of two events on the side of Partisans. First was a major defeat of partisan attack on Italian garrison in Pljevlja in the beginning of December, in which partisans had several hundreds of killed and wounded, resulted in desertion of partisans and their joining Chetnik units. The second event was so called "left deviation" among Partisans in Montenegro and terror they conducted against their real and potential enemies." ("Konflikt između dvije grupe ubrzala su dva događaja na partizanskoj strani. Jedno je bio slom partizanskog napada na italijanski garnizon u Pljevljima početkom decembra, u kojem su partizani imali nekoliko stotina mrtvih i ranjenih i koji je doveo do osipanja partizanskih i prelaženja u četničke redove. Drugi događaj je bio "lijeva devijacija" među partizanima u Crnoj Gori i primena terora protiv stvarnih i potencijalnih neprijatelja ...")--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, but you do not address the fact that Tomasevich uses a significantly different description in his 2001 work. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does Tomasevich explain what were two main reasons that accelerated conflict between Partisans and Chetniks in Montenegro in his 2001 work?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I quoted it above. Same page as you've already used in this article. p.142 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You refer to two completely different assertions of Tomasevich presented in two different works he wrote that accidentally have the same page numbers.

1. In his 2001 work Tomasevich explains the reasons for division between insurgents:
   1. "the defeats inflicted by the Italians on the insurgents" - this happened during Italian offensive which lasted until the end of August 1941
   2. and "realisation by some that the leading elements of the uprising were Communists"
2. In his 1979 work Tomasevich explains the reasons for increase/acceleration of the conflict between two groups of already divided insurgents:
   1. a major defeat of partisan attack on Italian garrison in Pljevlja in the beginning of December 1941
   2. so called "left deviation" among Partisans in Montenegro and terror they conducted against their real and potential enemies

Although you were wrong here I will amend the text of the article with information about the main reasons for split. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your "completely different" assertions are not completely different. They relate to the same thing, the split between the Partisans and Chetniks. Firstly what led to it, then what made it worse, (apparently, because I do not have access to the English version to check the context, and I will not AGF given your previous failure to place information in its proper context in other articles). The "differences" are semantic and on a continuum rather than substantive and unrelated. You also have the issue of using a 1979 work and ignoring a 2001 work, which has the benefit of academic recency. This gives rise to the issue that all majority and significant minority views appearing in reliable published sources should be covered, not just one author in a 1979 work. Tomasevich writes about the split in several of his works, and conclusions of other authors should also be represented, not just one source from one author published in 1979 in Serbo-Croat that emphasises the role of a Partisan defeat and communist terror in the acceleration of the split. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The reasons for division between insurgents and reasons for increase/acceleration of the conflict between two groups of already divided insurgents are two completely different assertions. They are not my assertions but assertions of Tomasevich who is exceptional source, not "just one source from one author". Taking in consideration that his works are extensively used by you in numerous related articles, there your referring to his work as "just one source from one author" does not makes much sense. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

one follows the other, you just ignored the first one (clearly wilfully, as you had already used the same page of the same work) and emphasised the second one. That is the essence of POV. Even though Tomasevich's work is often considered the most authoritative on the era, I don't use Tomasevich to the exclusion of other sources, and often contrast his view with that of others on the same point. That is the difference between you and I on such articles, and this one as well. Cherrypicking is not ok, it is POV. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. I haven't ignored the first one. On the contrary. I actually added it (diff) after you pointed to that text here. There was nothing intentional nor POV in presenting the reasons for increase/acceleration of the conflict without presenting the reasons for the split first. I understand that you have different opinion, but since this issue has been resolved now and reasons for split among insurgents have been added to the article, there is no particular reason to continue this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will be thankful for small mercies. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is an issue with the scope of this article. Tomasevich states that the uprising was suppressed in six weeks, effectively by the end of August. What source indicates the uprising continued until December 1941? Unless there is a reliable source that states the uprising continued past the end of August, I believe any material after the end of August 1941 should be in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You should read the article more carefully. It explains that after successful Italian counteroffensive the uprising continued to a reduced extent. There is a reliable source already cited in the article. It is a work of Stevan Pavlowich who is extensively cited in the related articles. He explained that the uprising continued to a reduced extent until December 1941 and insurgent's defeat in Pljevlja. I found another of his works in which he repeats the same:

• Stevan K. Pavlowitch (1971). Yugoslavia. Praeger. p. 122. ...the revolt was not really stopped until December, by which time Italian reprisals had claimed thousands of victims.

This is also confirmed by the events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Again, you continue to cherry pick sources, Pavlowitch may support this contention but Tomasevich 1975 and 2001 do not explicitly do so. Once again, you are cherry picking if you do not balance and compare and contrast sources, and attribute information inline if a source stands alone on an issue. There are plenty of examples of this. You choose to highlight Djurisic in the lead and the DYK nomination, yet a review of the sources indicates he was only one of several key commanders. You failed to mention Tomasevich's observation that the uprising was initiated by the communists, and that some officers were pro-communist, I have now added that. You failed to mention that Tomasevich 1975 states that the nationalists admitted defeat, but that the communists wanted to continue fighting. Your presentation of the chronology in the lead places the leftist deviation and terror before the counter-offensive, yet neither Tomasevich text puts the events in that order, in fact Tomasevich 1975 places those events towards the end of 1941. Tomasevich 2001 squarely places the leftist deviation as subsequent to the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja and in part as a response to desertions, yet you placed it before the counter-offensive in the lead, probably four months out of sequence, which suits your point of view about the communists, and your sympathy for the Chetniks. It is this type of POV presentation of reliably sourced material that concerns me the most. I am sure there are plenty more that will need to be addressed in order to make sure this article is presented in a NPOV fashion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Like I said, its not only Pavlowitch who supports the assertion about the duration of the uprising, but the events themselves. Your "Tomasevich do not explicitly do so" is not enough to dispute Pavlowitch.
• Your other remarks are not related to the duration of uprising. If you believe this article has some POV issues because you think I don't have enough sympathy for the communists it would be better to start another discussion about it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The issue of the duration of the uprising depends on Pavlowitch 2007. I don't have access to my copy where I am, but I will check it when I can. However, I have had to move quite a bit of material to the Aftermath section (and out of the infobox as a "Result"), as it clearly doesn't belong in the Uprising period of July to December. This includes the collaboration agreement between Djurisic and Biroli and the resulting leaving of the hinterland to the Chetniks, the expulsion/withdrawal of the Partisans from Montenegro, and a number of other items. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I look forward to your report about verification of Pavlowitch 2007.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The expulsion of the Partisans from Montenegro happened in the second quarter of 1942 per Tomasevich 2001 p.143. At best this is Aftermath. I will adjust the article accordingly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Again incorrect. Tomasevich refers to the events in the second quarter of 1942 that "forced the remaining Partisans out of Montenegro." The majority of Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your use of p.147 of Pavlowitch 2002 is inaccurate, there is no mention of 3000 there (so I have removed it). it does not mention when it happened. You are twisting a single vague paragraph of this source to suit your own ideas of when events happened. Produce the source, including quotation, that says Partisans withdrew from Montenegro in December. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

No doubt that you saw that 3,000 partisans forced out of Montenegro was in work you mentioned in the first sentence of your comment here. No doubt that you know that I did not cite Pavlowitch for this assertion. No doubt that you know that there is scientific consensus about withdraw of Partisan forces from Montenegro after uprising. No doubt that you know that the First Proleterian Brigade established in Rudo, Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 December 1941 included significant portion of Partisans that were chased away from Montenegro after the Battle of Pljevlja. Your removal of this assertion is disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is up to the editor responsible to properly source assertions, not blame another editor for not fixing your mistakes. You failed to properly source the assertion (and the date it occurred). I am to ignore your likely motivation for that am I? You claiming "scientific consensus" is nonsense. There is no scientific consensus, there might be academic consensus, but if that was the case there would be several academic sources cited for it. Sadly, there are not. So you have thus far failed to demonstrate such a consensus exists, and I have challenged your assertion (which was wrong). The rest is pure OR. Huge assumptions on your part about what I (or any other reader of this article) "no doubt" know. Properly source the assertions you put in the article, contrast them with sources where they may not agree, don't make assumptions, and actually read and comprehend the sources you do use, and we will get along just fine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is about expulsion of partisans from Montenegro.

• You stated that "The expulsion of the Partisans from Montenegro happened in the second quarter of 1942 per Tomasevich 2001 p.143." and I explained that you were again wrong.
• You accused me that I used p.147 of Pavlowitch 2002 to support assertion about the expulsion of 3,000 Partisans from Montenegro, and I explained you that you were again wrong and that I did not cite Pavlowitch for this assertion at all. I also explained that there is no doubt that you know that the source for this assertion is Tomasevich 2001 p.143, because you mentioned that page in your first comment here.
• "Properly source the assertions you put in the article, contrast them with sources where they may not agree, don't make assumptions, and actually read and comprehend the sources you do use, and we will get along just fine." - Partisans from Montenegro could not be in Bosnia and in Montenegro at the same time. I explained to you that Tomasevich referred to the events in the second quarter of 1942 that "forced the remaining Partisans out of Montenegro." If you believe that their expulsion happened only in the second quarter of 1942, then present sources which back up your opinion, don't attack me. I will again repeat, will you please be so kind not to continue with your unnecessary harsh comments to me because this kind of personalization of issues is nonconstructive violation of wikipedia policies?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• to your second dot point, this is the diff. It clearly shows you were incorrectly relying on Pavlowitch 2002, not Tomasevich. QED. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Again incorrect. The diff you presented shows that I did not even cite the assertion about Partisan forces forced out of Montenegro.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• It is not incorrect. Look at the diff. What is the citation that follows the assertion about the 3000? Pavlowitch. It is WP policy that you look to the following citation for the source of the preceding material, whether it is one sentence or five sentences. Anyone reading that passage would think that those sentences were sourced from Pavlowitch. So you are saying you did not intend to indicate that material came from Pavlowitch, even though the article indicated that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• to your third point, Milazzo p. 82 (used in the Djurisic article) states that Djurusic defeated the last significant Partisan detachment in Montenegro in May 1942! Your contention about Montenegrin Partisans not being in one place and another at the same time is pure OR. What source says they were the same Partisans? I have Milazzo and Tomasevich, both of whom say there were "remaining" or "significant" Partisans in Montenegro in the second quarter of 1942 who withdrew/were defeated. Pretty hard if they had already left, isn't it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Straw man fallacy. It is you who insist that the expulsion of the Partisans from Montenegro happened only in the second quarter of 1942 although sources only refer to thos Partisan forces that remained after many of them were chased away in December 1941.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

do you even know what a straw man fallacy is? What source do you have for the Partisans chased away in December 1941?, you have used Pavlowitch 2002, p. 147, yet he doesn't state when it occurred... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• This is the third time I repeat this: "You accused me that I used p.147 of Pavlowitch 2002 to support assertion about the expulsion of 3,000 Partisans from Montenegro, and I explained you that you were again wrong and that I did not cite Pavlowitch for this assertion at all."

• You have completely failed to read the diff or you don't know how to cite on WP. I have no intention to continue repeating myself to explain something any WP editor should know. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Yes I know what is straw man. The burden to prove your position is on you, not on me. Until now the sources you presented does not say that expulsion of Partisans happened only in the second quarter of 1942. On the contrary, they clearly say that only "remaining" Partisans in Montenegro were chased away in the second quarter of 1942 from Montenegro. There is no point to continue this discussion until you present sources that directly support your position. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ah no, the burden is on you. I have a source for what I am saying, you don't have one for what you are saying. In fact, most of what you are saying is OR, extrapolating "events" instead of relying on specific statements in a source. Again, you appear to not understand the simplest WP policy. I will not continue to discuss this with you until you provide a source for what you are saying. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

No you don't have a source that expulsion of Partisans happened only in the second quarter of 1942. On the contrary, you presented a sources that only "remaining" Partisans in Montenegro were chased away in the second quarter of 1942 from Montenegro, not that all partisans were chased away in the second quarter of 1942, so the burden is on you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have added the Italian estimate of Partisan numbers in Montenegro in February 1942. The "remaining" Partisans at that point being 8,000. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Does it mean there was no expulsion of Partisans from Montenegro in December 1941, which was the main point of your complaint here? I don't think so. Whether there were 3,000 or 8,000 remaining Partisans the point is on their "remaining" status. They remained in Montenegro after expulsion of December 1941.
• I think that you should not remove Pavlowitch's assertion about 3,000 remaining partisans (diff) to add Italian estimations about 8,000 remaining partisans (diff). I think that your edits are violation of NPOV policy aimed to give more weight to your point of view.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Pavlowitch 2002 p. 147 does NOT say when the expulsion occurred (or use the 3,000 figure), so it is OR to assume a date he is referring to in a paragraph that could potentially cover the period from August 1941 to spring 1942. Earlier you said you were not using Pavlowitch for the 3,000 figure and claimed I knew it was Tomasevich. Now you are saying it was Pavlowitch. It IS Tomasevich that gives the 3,000 figure and a date for it (second quarter of 1942). While Tomasevich is the only source I am aware of that gives a date for ANY expulsion of Partisans from Montenegro, he does say "remaining", which implies some were expelled before that time. However, I am unaware of a source that states when this occurred. Your original assertion (above) was that "The majority of Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941". What is the source for that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• You insisted that Tomasevich said that "The expulsion of the Partisans from Montenegro happened in the second quarter of 1942" although there is no doubt you were aware from the beginning of this discussion that he "implies some were expelled before that time". Every single source you presented here confirm that partisans retreated from Montenegro after the Battle of Pljevlja. Why do you want me to present sources for that? Do you now claim that Partisans retreated before this battle? If they retreated before this battle how could they participate in it? I really can't see any constructive reason behind your actions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Actually, I retract that, Tomasevich's statement only implies that some Partisans had left Montenegro before the second quarter of 1942, it does not imply the ones that left earlier were "expelled". Are you suggesting that when you said "The majority of Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941" you meant anytime after that, or immediately after that? Because the latter appears to be the case. Your "the First Proleterian Brigade established in Rudo, Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 December 1941 included significant portion of Partisans that were chased away from Montenegro after the Battle of Pljevlja", indicates that you have sources for the assertion that a significant portion of the Partisans were chased away from Montenegro between the Battle of Pljevlja and the formation of the 1st Proletarian Brigade? Do you actually have a source for that? See, you have not actually ever produced a source that says that, but at least we have Tomasevich, who gives a time for the expulsion of the "remaining" Partisans, and we have Rodogno, who gives us an Italian estimate of the Partisan strength in February 1942. Neither of which support your contention above. We don't actually have any source as yet that says the majority of Partisans retreated from Montenegro in December 1941. If you have one produce it. If not, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• There is absolute scientific, academic and every possible kind of consensus that Battle of Pljevlja was in December 1941 and that almost all Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941. Every single source you presented here confirms this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I have not asked about the date of the Battle, that is well known and I have never challenged it. I have repeatedly asked for a source for your contention that "that almost all Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941", but you have refused to provide it, instead making unsourced claims about "scientific consensus". We have a source for Partisan strength in Montenegro in February 1942 (Rodogno) which seriously challenges that assertion. It is a ridiculous idea that "Almost all" having left can have 8,000 Partisans remaining in Montenegro two months later. If you repeatedly fail to produce a source when challenged, but instead respond with OR about "consensus" it can only be because you have no source to back up your claim. I see no reason to continue this discussion unless you actually produce a reliable source for the claim that "that almost all Partisans retreated from Montenegro after their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• You challenged this assertion although all sources both me and you presented directly support it. The burden is on you. If you want to prove your position here produce a reliable source for the claim that the majority of Partisans did not retreat from Montenegro or that they retreated before their defeat in Pljevlja in December 1941. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re-factored from above. Presentation of the chronology in the lead placed the leftist deviation and terror before the counter-offensive, yet neither Tomasevich text puts the events in that order, in fact Tomasevich 1975 places those events towards the end of 1941. Tomasevich 2001 squarely places the leftist deviation as subsequent to the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja and in part as a response to desertions, yet you placed it before the counter-offensive in the lead, probably four months out of sequence, which suits your point of view about the communists, and your sympathy for the Chetniks. It is this type of POV presentation of reliably sourced material that concerns me the most. I am sure there are plenty more that will need to be addressed in order to make sure this article is presented in a NPOV fashion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Again incorrect. Your comment to me is, like always, unnecessary harsh. I know that you intend to attack me in every single comment you write until I leave wikipedia. You have already made editing of many articles here so unpleasant for me that I decided not to edit them. That is apparently your strategy here too, probably because you think that the texts I write shows lack of sympathy toward communists. I used to politely ask you not to continue with this kind of activities, though I know that you are going to continue with this kind of activities until somebody stops you. Anyway, I will again repeat, will you please be so kind not to continue with your unnecessary harsh comments to me because this kind of personalization of issues is nonconstructive violation of wikipedia policies?
• Even if Leftist Deviations started in December there would be nothing POV in wrong chronology. What would really be violation of NPOV is not to mention this events. There are plenty of articles on related topics that achieved GA or even FA status (this article is DYK nominated) without even mentioning this events.
• What Tomasevich really did was to present some cases of the Leftist Deviations after communist defeat at Pljevlja. Communists admitted that they pursued this policy. There is scientific consensus that they pursued this policy. Even communist era historiography says that they started with this policy in August, i.e. after the period of initial success of insurgents which lasted three weeks. They intensified this policy in September:
  • Лакић, Зоран (1981). Народна власт у Црној Гори 1941-1945. Обод. p. 247. Иако су такозвана „лијева скретања" у Црној Гори почела августа а била чешћа од септембра 1941. године, ... [Although so called "leftist deviations" in Montenegro began in August and intensified in September 1941...] --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have never advocated avoiding the leftist deviations, I just believe they should be placed in their correct chronological location, not brought forward in time to justify actions taken by others. Presenting this in the wrong chronology because it suits your purposes. That is the essence of POV. Tomasevich "really" did nothing of the sort you claim. Read him and the footnotes, and you will see that he "really" clearly refers to it being a response to the defeat. Your source (whoever it is) should be contrasted to Tomasevich at the very least. You used Pavlowitch's vague paragraph to cover a number of issues, and ascribed to them dates they don't have attached. Now you produce a new source you have furiously dug up, to defend your misuse of Pavlowitch. It's incredibly transparent.

• There was nothing intentional nor POV even if Leftist Deviations in Montenegro started in December (which you had not prove yet). Will you please be so kind not to continue with your unnecessary harsh comments to me?
• "Furiously dug up"? - this is a draft of article on leftist deviation, version on 17 March 2014, a week before you posted your question about the chronology of the leftist deviations here. It clearly posts the beginning of the LD in August 1941. Tomasevich does not say that LD began after Partisan defeat at Pljevlja. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fn 35 on p.143 of Tomasevich 2001 clearly directs the reader to another source on the abortive attack, and then states "There is a great deal of literature on the Partisans' SUBSEQUENT "leftist deviation" (my emphasis) and directs the reader to more information on the "leftist deviations". Subsequent means "coming after something in time" or words to that effect. ie chronologically"after". How much clearer can it be? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does subsequent mean that it began after the Battle of Pljevlja or it may refer to the events that followed the Battle of Pljevlja but may have started before it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It must be read as it is. Subsequently means after. You also need to take into account that sources from Yugoslav historiography were often written with the internal squabbles between Tito, Djilas and Arso Jovanovic over the "leftist deviation" in mind. They must be treated as questionable and properly examined for reliability and context before relying on them here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

So it does not mean "it began after" but may refer to the events that followed the Battle of Pljevlja but may have started before it. Why do you insist that it began after then?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where did I say that? After means after. "May" is OR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here (diff) - "Following this defeat, the communists began to terrorize the people they perceived as their enemies, which antagonized many in Montenegro". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I moved it there, you reverted my move, so I reinstated it. What is your point? Do you accept the move of the information or not? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why do you ask me what is my point? It is you who complained about the chronology and moved beginning of the communist terror in Montenegro to December 1941, contrary to the sources and actual events. In early November 1941 Tito dismissed Milovan Đilas from the command of Partisan forces in Montenegro because of his mistakes during the uprising, including his "Leftist Errors". Please don't expect me to participate in your edit war and either revert yourself or prove your position with sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

What sources? So far we have Lakic, a Tito-era historian saying August, Tito apparently sacking Djilas in November, Tomasevich saying late in 1941 and also after the failed attack. So what is it? I'm not seeing anything definitive about when it started, and certainly no "scientific consensus". If you have other sources, produce them, but in the meantime, all the sources that discuss the leftist errors should be represented, not just the ones you like. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Again incorrect and again unnecessary harsh comment. You probably forgot that Tomasevich does not say "it began after" the Battle of Pljevlja like you added to the text of the article (diff). It is you who added this assertion and complained about the chronology. The burden is on you.
• Will you please be so kind not to continue with your unnecessary harsh comments to me?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Morrison p.54 talks about Partisan reprisals in the winter of 1941. What Tomasevich does not say is irrelevant. He refers to events that occurred after the Battle of Pljevlja, I will amend the wording. Another example is the Kolasin "dog cemetery" which was in January 1942. My comments are harsh to your editing behaviour and demonstrated failure to acknowledge the issues with your editing, not you personally. Your reaction to my comments is almost always incredibly precious. I've said before that you need to take a good look at your own comments. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• It is very relevant because you tried to use Tomasevich to justify your chronology complaint. I noticed that his text does not support your position so your attempt failed.
• Please be so kind to clarify if you still believe that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja?:
  • If you still believe it, why did you remove "began" from "began to terrorize" (diff) instead to present sources for your position?
  • If not, why don't you "acknowledge the issues with your editing"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have amended the lead to more clearly reflect what Tomasevich says on the page in question, following = after. I believe that the sources so far presented are not clear when the red terror began in Montenegro. You have presented one Yugoslav Tito-era source source that states it started in August. The majority of other sources raised here indicate it started later in 1941. So my current understanding is that while there is one source that says it started in August, the academic consensus (of the sources available) appears to be a later date is most likely, certainly after the counter-offensive. As I say, if you have other sources for the timing of the terror, present them, then we can discuss what wording should be used in the article to reflect the different sources? That would be the usual way of approaching such a situation. See, for example, how I handled the issue of the Mihailovic Instructions in the Djurusic article. That is how you handle situations where sources vary on an issue. You don't just choose one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, you are unable to present a single source which directly supports your position that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, don't start with that nonsense. I've said what I believe the sources say. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

WP:RS says: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Until now you have not presented a single source which directly supports your position that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

As I explained above, Tomasevich states "There is a great deal of literature on the Partisans' subsequent "leftist deviation"." Subsequent means "coming after something in time" or words to that effect. This means that Tomasevich is saying that "there is a great deal of literature on the leftist deviation which occurred after the Battle of Pljevlja. Are you now saying there was more than one leftist deviation? Funny that Tomasevich doesn't mention it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You probably again forgot that Tomasevich did not say that communist terror "began after" the Battle of Pljevlja. Please either present reliable sources that directly support your position that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja or drop the stick. There is no point to continue this discussion until you present sources that directly support your position. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

look, I know English isn't your first language, but it is mine. If you can't read that page and footnote and comprehend what it means, that's your problem, not mine. It does (directly) mean that the leftist deviation was subsequent to (and partly in response to) the Battle. If you move the material out of the chronological order the sources support, I will take the matter elsewhere, and I will continue to raise it with WRT the DYK nomination. If you want to discuss how to compare and contrast the various sources on the issue, then let me know and we will work out something mutually acceptable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

"If you move the material out of the chronological order the sources support". I sincerely apologize if I fail to notice sources that support your position that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja. Will you please be so kind to present them?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Don't play semantics with me. Don't you mean "leftist deviation"? In which case, I've already explained Tomasevich to you twice, I can't see how explaining a third time is going to help. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another unnecessary harsh comment. Its not about what I mean. Its about your failure to prove your complaint about the chronology of "the leftist deviation and terror". You've already explained that subsequent means after (not "beginning after") so Tomasevich does not support your chronology complaint. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are either just being obtuse, or you don't understand. Either way, I stand by my interpretation of Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The divisions in the infobox are artificial, post-justified, and not consistent with the text. According to the text, the uprising was a popular one, including communists, Whites, officers and Chetniks, and the Chetniks did not start raising separate forces until December (when the uprising was all but over). There should therefore be no division in the infobox between the communists, officers and Whites, they should just be listed in alphabetical order or some similar arbitrary system. Djurusic fought alongside communists during his celebrated victory of Berane, some officers were pro-communist, and officers mostly commanded the insurgent units until at least October, even though those forces contained commissars and were organised by communists. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That was also my position when I began writing this article. The split occurred between insurgents soon after the uprising started. That is why I separated them. Putting all of them together would contradict the text and actual events. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

What split? What is the source for that? What we currently have is separate units being raised in December, not soon after the uprising started. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This split between insurgents is presented in the article and properly cited. No doubt you know it. In one of your comments above you actually insisted that "only the communists gave determined resistance to the Italian counter-offensive." Now you deny there was a split between insurgents until December. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

What citation? I see no citation for that "fact". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you used "fact" under quotation marks when I did not mention "fact"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have tagged the Aftermath section, as it contains a paragraph that strays from the topic of the uprising (and its aftermath), and should be moved to the Leftist errors (Yugoslavia) article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that paragraph in question strayed from the topic of the uprising because it describes actions of Partisans after they retreated from Montenegro. Still, I removed this paragraph. Based on the same argument you used here to support mass murders committed by Partisans I will remove the paragraph about activities of Chetniks from the same section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is not the same argument. Herzegovina is not Montenegro. I have restored the para about the Chetniks committing the same mistakes in Montenegro as the communists in Montenegro, because it was part of the aftermath of the events related to the Uprising in Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Partisans from Montenegro retreated to Herzegovina. While they were retreating they conducted acts of mass terror, followng the uprising in Montenegro. It is exactly the same argument. It is necessary to follow WP:NPOV and present both points of view. It would be wrong to remove text about misdeeds of Partisans that directly followed the uprising and to leave text about Chetniks misdeeds that were completely unrelated to the uprising and happened much later. To conclude: I propose both informations to be restored. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

How far do you take that? So we can add info about Djurisic's massacring of Muslims in the Sandjak, which is exactly what he did once he made arrangements with the Italians to leave him alone? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Will you please be so kind to present the date of Chetniks massacre of Muslims in Bukovica?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The issue of what should be in the Aftermath section of this article (the aftermath of the uprising - being post December 1941), has not been properly addressed. This article is not a WP:COATRACK for things that occurred outside Montenegro, which are covered in the article you have already created on that subject. There is also the Italian governorate of Montenegro, which will comprehensively cover what occurred in that territory after December 1941. This article scope is the uprising, which "grumbled on until December" according to Pavlowitch, and in my view, its immediate aftermath is all that should go in the Aftermath section. What needs discussion here is what period of time should be included in the Aftermath section (and what sources say about whether the material is related to the uprising). I will create a new section for that discussion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason for you to avoid to answer on my simple direct question to present the date of Chetniks massacre of Muslims in Bukovica? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

As usual, you avoid my questions, then ask your own questions. It is pointless discussing these matters with you, you show no signs of working toward a consensus on contentious issues, you merely blindly follow your own agenda. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. It is exactly the opposite. Everything you said to me here actually applies to you. As usual, you again refuted your position yourself. You asked me "How far do you take that? So we can add info about Djurisic's massacring of Muslims in the Sandjak.... ?" trying to ridicule my position. In fact, it is exactly what you did here. You added text about Djurisic's 1943 massacres after you deleted text about Herzegovina massacres committed by Partisans during and immediatelly after this uprising. That is why you avoid to answer to my question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have queries (immediately above), the period of time covered by the Aftermath section, as it is not clear what is included. I invite interested editors to discuss this here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose changing the title to either "1941 Uprising in Montenegro" or "13 July Uprising", since the current title is quite vague and inadequate, as if it was the only uprising ever to occur in the country. Sideshow Bob 09:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

13 July Uprising would be equally opaque. I suggest 1941 Uprising in Montenegro. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Years as adjectives always strike me as too informal or journalistic. Also, numerals shouldn't go at the beginning of sentences and the resultant title would have to be piped if it were ever the subject of a sentence. Finally, since it isn't a proper name the U in uprising shouldn't be capitalised in that title. All in all, I'd prefer Uprising in Montenegro (1941). Srnec (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Concur. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Moved to the agreed title. Sideshow Bob 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article fails to mention that chetniks were montenegrin Serbs (although every single article about chetnik crimes or collaboration sticks out serbian nature of the movement) Is that to diminish serbian contribution to allied victory as part of general anti serbian sentiment on english wikipedia? Especially on WW2 topics? Also, how could this uprising lead to chetnik collaboration one year later? It seems that someone found a way to promote chetnik collaboration even when talking about chetniks fighting axis forces? 109.245.35.97 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is utter nonsense. What happened in Montenegro mirrored to a great extent what happened in the rest of Yugoslavia (with the exception of the additional factor of the Greens). The nationalists (who became Chetniks) were involved in the uprising alongside the communists, but swapped sides and collaborated when they saw advantage to do so. It is hard to believe that you are not aware that is the academic consensus, backed by decades of research and mountains of evidence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Academic consensus that denies the facts. Academic research that is still thwarted by ideology, nationalism and hatred, even in Belgrade. From the begining of war to the end there were chetniks who fought against axis forces. Also, communists were almost allied to Nazis before June 1941. With multiple examples of collaboration (together with also proven arrangements and collaboration later in the war). Also, my main point is that this article skips to mention serbian character of uprising but almost all articles about war crimes insist on serbian character of chetnik movement. Although we are talking about same forces. Also, I managed to compare articles about different nations and movements in WW2. Chetniks and Serbs have the most harsh treatment without any logic beside anti serbian racism. I do not believe that all of the people that write these articles are anti serbian, but accepting stereotypes without checking facts is equally dangerous. It is what contributes to harsh treatment of serbs even as we speak in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo and puts serbs in very hard situation in Montenegro. Nationalism is bad, but all nationalisms are bad, not just Serbian. Also, propaganda is bad. But anti serbian propaganda is also bad. I would like to repeat, there is no mention of serbian character of both chetniks and partisans. Article insists on chetnik collaboration with Italians after events that are main subject of article but fails to mention communists collaborating with Axis before and after. Also, article skips to mention that during the chetnik collaboration with some axis forces, those chetniks were in war with other axis forces ( this is problem with all chetnik articles). I still think this article is about serbs fighting axis forces but fails to mention it. So all three movements (chetniks, partisans, whites) involved had serbian character. 109.245.34.193 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, your argument is that the academic consensus is wrong? Clearly you are wasting my time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well if science denies facts than it is wrong, it is not science, it is pseudo-science. Scientists believed many wrong things and changed their mind. Science in Balkans, and specially history as science, is extremely corrupted. Back in the days, before anti-serbian hysteria that is still raging like a wild fire, common scientific belief was that Serbs opposed Hitler. Today Serbs are presented as nazi-like and collaborators mostly due to anti serbian sentiment and millions of dollars invested in anti serbian propaganda that ignores facts and is there to justify what had happened and what is happening to Serbs as we speak. I bet you never went to serb communities in Balkans, asked people about the truth but you allow yourself to judge and make statements. Neither did scientists, it was illegal to investigate and discuss chetnik effort to allied cause. It still is in some so called democratic countries in Balkans. People are being arrested today for singing chetnik songs because of false claims about chetnik forces. My main point is that this article misrepresents character of the uprising. It was uprising of Serbs against axis occupation. It involved mostly Serbs under Monarchist, Communist or just plain civil banner. It neglects the fact that communists waited for instructions from USSR to start uprising, while Chetniks were already in the war with multiple axis forces existing in Yugoslavia. Also, it neglects the fact that main goal of communist leadership was gaining power and helping USSR, not fighting axis forces which is shown by timing, picking and choosing enemies, avoiding battles and engaging in personal and ideological strifes, while main goal of chetniks was saving serbian communities from annihilation conducted by multiple axis forces at the moment. All sides mentioned in the article used same, often gruesome tactics, but that is a different story. I just ask for this article to be fair to Serbs. 109.245.38.255 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply