Pavle Đurišić has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 10, 2012 Good article nominee Listed July 18, 2012 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 23, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Biography / Balkan / European / World War II A‑class This article 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 A This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Biography GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Yugoslavia GA‑class Mid‑importance Pavle Đurišić 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Montenegro GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro 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.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bosnia and Herzegovina GA‑class Mid‑importance Pavle Đurišić is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia GA‑class Mid‑importance This article 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did Djurisic really take part in Operation Halyard? -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the following text from: in March 1945 and attacked the Ustaša fascists in Lijevče polje near Banja Luka to: in March 1945 and attacked the Croatian Armed Forces in Lijevče polje near Banja Luka

becouse in that time the ustasa and homeguard (domobran) forces where united in one army called HOS (Hrvatske Oruzane Snage), I allso delited fascist becouse fascist party was not allowed in Croatia during ww2. Djurusic himself was a a supporter of Italian fascism, and was their allie. General Canic (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file apparently showing the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class shows a certificate in gothic script. According to www.wehrmacht-awards.com/iron_cross/2nd_1st_class/2_1_documents_cases/documents.htm the script of the certificates was changed to Latin in 1943. There are examples of both on the cited page. Given that the file on the page shows a certificate in gothic script for an award allegedly made in November 1944, this casts doubt on whether the certificate shown in this file is legitimate. Can anyone tell me what the source of this file is? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:FkpCascais has indicated that the usage of defacto and nominally is inaccurate when describing Djurisic's allegiance in the infobox. I'm not sure it is necessary to have allegiance listed, but if it is to be retained, it should be based on the sources. If the allegiance is to be to the government he serves, given he owed his first allegiance to DM until the time of his capture, escape to Serbia in mid-late 1943, and DM was still the Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland at that point, it is clear that his formal allegiance was to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia up to that date, despite his also owing a certain allegiance to the Italians with whom he was collaborating (who of course were an enemy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). However, when he returned to Serbia and was arrested by the Nedic regime then handed over to the Germans, he was then released and became first an assistant commander of the Serbian Volunteer Corps, then in the spring of 1944, the commander of the Montenegrin Volunteer Corps. The problem for Djurisic's allegiance at this point, however, is that whilst formally to Yugoslavia via DM (Tomasevich 1975, p351), he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and Nedic (Tomasevich 2001, p222) who released, promoted and supported him. Further complicating his situation was that a few months later, the Supreme Command of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland was dissolved by the King and Tito was made head of the resistance. At this point, by not joining the Partisans, Djurisic was in fact not demonstrating allegiance to Yugoslavia via Tito, but to his other allegiances to the government of Germany through Nedic, and this remained the case until his death. Given this, it seems that his allegiance should be described as 1941 (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), 1942-1944 (Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis) and 1944-1945 (Germany and Nedic's Serbia). Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this. As Tomasevich points out (2001, 148) "The Germans were not entirely pleased with the arrangement, however, since Djurisic, while owing allegiance to the Germans who maintained him, also owed allegiance to Nedic and Mihailovic." The best and most accurate approach would be Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1941-1945), Fascist Italy (1942-1943), Nazi Germany and Nedic's Serbia (1943-1945). Your suggestion implies he defected to the axis in 1944 and was loyal solely to them until the end of the war. It is clear he held his allegiance throughout the war to Mihailovic (KoY) and collaborated while doing so. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure that he kept his allegiance to Kingdom of Yugoslavia once he became sub-liutenant of Nedic governament in mid 1944, but I wan´t change any edit without confirming this first with sources. Anyway, I beleave this kind of approach in allegiance section instead of the nominally/de facto seems more precise and better. FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the most accurate approach is that he had allegiance to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1945. DM did not represent the Yugoslav Government in Exile (the relevant government) from August 1944 onwards, so I can't see how allegiance to DM translates to allegiance to the KoY from then on. I am happy with your edit except for KoY, which I think should be 1941-1944. If there is no restriction on owing allegiance to a government, perhaps instead he could be listed as having allegiance to DM in 1944-1945 (as well as Nedic and Germany) rather than to KoY? I also wanted to address the issue of the removal of my edit of the Iron Cross in the infobox (reference to Germany). Given his award is quite remarkable for a 'resistance fighter', I would have thought it was worthwhile noting that it is the German Iron Cross rather than some obscure Serbian or Montengrin award. Your thoughts on that? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. What about removing KoY all together and replacing it with "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (1941-1945)". This avoids us having to deal with the government support aspect of it and avoids us having to put his allegiance to one man. In regards to the Iron Cross case, most military biography articles don't show which nation the military awards belong to, but given that this isn't like most situations perhaps we should distinguish that its from the Germans. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that approach. No flag for them? I'll fix the Iron Cross. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, I fail to see any rank he held within Italian or German Army. Joint actions are not the same as "allegiance". FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to have a rank in the Italian or German army. He and various other Chetniks were loyal to them through their collaboration agreements. The sources are clear on this. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Fkp, but you are missing something. You haven't read the source I quoted above. That is what is required, not a rank in their Army. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, yees it is. You are founding your arguments using the reasoning that he had allegiance to Germans trough Nedic. What about Italy? They had joint actions, that is not the same... I object this edit. POV and unsourced. FkpCascais (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Read Tomasevich 2001 p222, that is the source for the data about his allegiance. As PRODUCER points out, Tomasevich 1975 p349-351 is also relevant. That is all that is required under WP policy, a reliable published source. You can object as much as you like. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being funny, but the Iron Cross is also a bit of an indicator of one of his allegiances. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Pavle Djurisic.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started expanding this article. Today I expanded Djurisic's early activities from the invasion. I'll start on the Battle of Neretva next. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice additions, but I'm not sure if we should be using a review of a book (Pavlowitch 2005) to be backing up claims. I also noted the removal of Lerner and Mulaj. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just erring on the side of NPOV with taking out Lerner and Mulaj, but I'm also comfortable with removing Pavlowitch 2005). Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed McDonald. He does not take sides and simply points out what Tim Judah has said, which is that the authenticity is disputed. (In Judah's footnote he shows that Tomasevich accepts it whereas Malcolm disputes it.) -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry about the cut and paste, my edit was so big I wasn't quite sure how to amalgamate what you had done with my expansions. I'll go back and put yours back in. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pavle Đurišić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   prose: (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. and British Special Operations Executive. Suggest - and a British Special Operations Executive

2. and after moving around for a while established his base at. Suggest - after moving around for a while he established his base at

3. they met their doom in May. Suggest - they met their downfall in May

4. Suggest you break up the references into books and websites as it looks neater.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Good job Producer. Thurgate (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,
There seem to be an edit warring in progress here. Please follow the 3-revert rule which I hope you understand by now and settle the dispute amicably here. Thanks. ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kebeta, I have reverted your good-faith additions. HuHu22's claim that Djurisic's Iron Cross award is "communist propaganda" and that the source provided (Cohen) to back that claim is a "communist source" is absolute unfounded nonsense. The additional Pakistani Islamic Research Institute reference is not reliable and more than likely cites Cohen in their text. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yugoslavia

WikiProject Montenegro

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]