Talk:Far-right politics in Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blood and Honour Serbia

Blood and honour also exists in Serbia http://www.bhserbia.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.24.171 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.reference.com/browse/Nazism

There is a short story about Nazism in Serbia

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7828019 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.24.171 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

I've removed this text

In October 2007, 56 members on Nacionalni stroj were arrested after an open protest against the independence of Kosovo. The Obraz Fatherland Movement has been accused of being a clerical fascist organization.

due to the two facts:

• first sentence is not supported by a reference i.e. the link is defunct
• second sentence is someone's claim - not an evidence

--Standshown 16:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I removed this text completely

Serbian Radical Party leader Tomislav Nikolić has denied the existence of neo-Nazis in the country despite Chetnik collaborations during World War II.

http://www.bhserbia.org/ http://www.nacionalnistroj.org/

The sentence is illogical as a whole, and irrelevant in its first part to this topic. The links given here are out of the context.--Standshown (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Before a vandal got to it, it said "Serbian Radical Party leader Tomislav Nikolić has denied the existence of neo-Nazis in the country." It's of great relevance when the controversial leader of the biggest party in the country denies the existence of Neo-Nazis within that country. --Thewanderer (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Reliability of the sources

I've removed this reference http://www.kuda.org/?q=sr/node/247 as unreliable one for its claim:

Situacije na antifašističkoj sceni su u Srbiji i Nemačkoj dijametralno različite. U Nemačkoj su antifašističke organizacije podržane od strane državnih institucija. Time su neofašističke organizacije pomerene na društvenu marginu. U Srbiji je situacija obrnuta. Ekstremno desne i fašističke organizacije imaju, ako ne otvorenu, onda prikrivenu podršku državnih institucija, desnih političkih partija, Univerziteta, SANU i Srpske pravoslavne crkve. Stoga su Srbiji antifašističke inicijative i organizacije upravo te koje su marginalizovane.

As per Wikipedia definition of reliable resource [1]

Aspects of reliability Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

The Serbian language text quoted above apparently fails the fact-checking and accuracy test. Here I found a number of internationally recognized reliable sources of information showing that:

• Neo-Nazis are not on the social and political margine in Germany - contrary to the claim above U Nemačkoj su antifašističke organizacije podržane od strane državnih institucija. Time su neofašističke organizacije pomerene na društvenu marginu. Moreover National Democratic Party, widely branded as a Neo-Nazi party in Germany is a legal party and has their representatives in the federal and provincial parliaments in Germany.

• Number of Neo-Nazi attacks in Germany is far above of those in Serbia. These incidents in Germany and attacks draw attention even of the UN.

• Claim that Neo-Nazis in Serbia are supported by Serbian political parties and the Serbian Orthodox Church is not documented nor found in any other reliable source of information.

Moreover we see that the Serbian government persecutes Neo-Nazis and prohibits their activities and that the Neo-Nazis are not in the Serbian political life present officially.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3528253&page=1

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-152945479.html

Violent neo-Nazi attacks in Germany from January to August this year reached a total of 452, wounding 325 people as compared to 363 such attacks in which 302 people were injured in the same period in 2005. There was a corresponding rise in the number of attacks by far-right militants, with almost 8,000 crimes reported in the first eight months of 2006, compared to 6,605 crimes reported for the same period in 2005.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357628,00.html

Most young right-wingers, both in the West and the East, are not willing to engage in violence, but they do prepare the ground for skinheads and thugs. The first effects of this process are already being felt. In its annual report issued last week, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution notes that neo-Nazi groups have experienced growth rates in excess of 25 percent. The number of crimes and violent acts committed by right-wing extremists is also growing, as is the frequency of skinhead concerts. Minister of the Interior Otto Schily says that the increasingly aggressive right-wing extremist movement is cause "for great concern."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1526424,00.html

The report on racism, xenophobia and discrimination placed a special focus on extreme right parties in eastern Germany, saying that it was "particularly worrying" that rightwing extremist parties such as the National Democratic Party (NPD) increased public support in recent state elections through racist slogans.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/de%7Dnpd.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1348896,00.html

Emboldened by recent regional election gains, Germany's far-right NDP party is pressing on. With an eye on upcoming national elections, the party has recruited prominent neo-Nazis for top leadership positions.

Germany's far-right National Party (NPD), which made headlines last month when it won 9.2 percent of the vote in regional elections in the eastern state of Saxony, is pressing on with its efforts to enter the national government. Looking ahead to upcoming federal elections in 2006, the NPD has recruited two prominent neo-Nazis for high-ranking leadership positions.

--Standshown (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

False statement removed

I've removed this sentence that shall be interpreted as (intentional) misinterpretation of the reference or a bad faith edit

In November 2007, Blood and Honour's Serbian leader Dragan Petrović announced that members of the organization would take part in celebrations of the German Nazis' Kristallnacht, being held in Prague.[10]

From the reference it is clear that Petrović did not announce anything - there is only a speculation of the Dnevni list that this man could support his comrades in the Czech Republic.

Tijesne veze s češkim neonacistima, prije svega ilegalnim češkim Narodnim otporom, održavaju i njihovi srpski istomišljenici, a kao veza im služi Dragan Petrović, zvani Bajba, iz srpskog ogranka organizacije Krv i čast, koji je oženjen Čehinjom i živi u Pragu. Petrović, koji je prema tvrdnjama češke policije, suviše kontroverzan i za češku ekstremističku scenu, uspješno je mobilizirao neonaciste iz Slovačkog zajedništva da prije mjesec dođu dana na fašističku demonstraciju u Novi Sad gdje je srpska policija jedanaestoricu Slovaka privela i protjerala iz Srbije.

--Standshown (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Additions like

In 2003, Nikolaj Velimirović was canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church. Velimirović is widely accused of being anti-semitic. Many right-wing and Orthodox organizations is Serbia cite Velimirović as an inspiration.

are not related to the neo-nazism topic. Please, adhere to the valid definition of neo-nazism. --Standshown (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it since it is used as ideological fuel for neonazi movements. They do not include just using "German nazi" copy, but German colaborators (kvislings) revival model in Serbia - where Obraz is prime example of modern clerofascism in Serbia (and thus form of neonazism)

Also, Storm front Serbia (nacionalni stroj) is disbanded to a registred NGO "Novi srpski program". Info needs a heavy update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.24.171 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Consistency

Removed as being out of topic (was already removed by other user) - it shall go into an article about neo-fascism.

Obraz is consisent extreme nationalist organization supporting neonazis and implementing same policies (claiming even Serbs are Aryans)

You are too narrow, modern neonazism is no longer just worshiping Hitler, its crossover of local calture and fascist/nazi methods and beliefs (white supermacism, national supermacy, hate to Jews, gays ...)

Yes, Obraz is prime example, and this info has NOT been moved to neofascism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.24.171 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Obraz

The Obraz Fatherland Movement is classified as a clerical fascist organization by the Serbian Ministry of the Interior. The group has come out in support of Nacionalni stroj. In December 2007 the group's members attempted to interrupt Human Rights Day celebrations on Republic Square with chants of Ustaše, Kill the faggots and There willl be meat, we will massacre the Croats among others. The group also sang songs from the collaborationist Chetnik World War II movement.

--Standshown (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only fascist movement in Serbia were Nazis and Serbian collaborators and quislings to the Nazis. Therefore, Neo-fascism in Serbia is equivalent to Neo-Nazism in Serbia. --Thewanderer (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Obraz again

I removed this paragraph completely due to the fact that

The Obraz Fatherland Movement is classified as a clerical fascist organization by the Serbian Ministry of the Interior.

i.e. cannot be seen as a Neo-Nazi organization. Also, the text

In December 2007 the group's members attempted to interrupt Human Rights Day celebrations on Republic Square with chants of Ustaše, Kill the faggots and There willl be meat, we will massacre the Croats among others. The group also sang songs from the collaborationist Chetnik World War II movement.

comes from the biased Croatian source Extremists in Belgrade: We'll massacre the Croats - which claims cannot be found in any impartial and valid source. To keep it here is, therefore, against the Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

--Standshown (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a legitimate point of view expressed in other sources as well. [2][3][4][5][6] --Strothra (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Far from legitimate. Before claiming that something is a reference - you are obliged to read the 'reference' and understand the 'reference' content. So
  • Your first and second reference are the same article. The only text about Obraz is 'A second far-right group Obraz (Face) had announced that it would organise a march in support of the National Front'. Far-right is not Neo-Nazi ultimately
  • Your third reference says: Velimirovic is the spirit behind several nationalist organizations: Obraz (or Otcastveni Pokret Obraz − Face), a well-organized ultra-rightist . Ultra-rightist is not Neo-Nazi
  • Your fourth reference does not make difference between Neo-Nazism and Fascism: in that sense, particular attention was paid to the neo-Nazi movement Obraz as the avant-garde of a possible rebirth of fascism in Serbia).
  • Your fifth reference says: ...and “Obraz” is a fascistic organization - again not Neo-Nazi
  • Neither of your references supports claim comming from the Croatian 'source' above.

--Standshown (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no - I'm not edit warring, I'm restoring cited information. The Serbian ministry is simply one source against many others. All of the sources I cited above connect Obraz to Neo-Nazi movements. This is a blatant example of how nationalism corrupts so many wiki articles. --Strothra (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Abouz Obraz

Clero-Fascism is contemporaty form of neo-nacism.

This leftover sentence is far less credibile then calling Obraz "the nazis in a national/religious suits" - when did any nationalists ATTACKED the nazis?

Neo-Nazi organisations have few followers due to the widespread anti-Nazi sentiment in Serbia, and because they are attacked by Serbian nationalists  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.71.143 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 

Alexa's reports

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/stormfront.org Stormfront.org aready has an article here with multiple links classifying it as Neo-Nazi. Serbia is number 1 in Regional Traffic Ranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see any article available under the given link. Looks like the comment above is an advertisement trick to bring the Wikipedia reader to the site having nothing to do with Neo Nazism.--71.163.229.192 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Utter propoganda whitewash

This article has clearly degenerated into a propoganda whitewash by Serbian nationalists, who, as usual, want to whitewash Nazism in Serbia, while at the same time demonising their neighbours as Nazis, and clearly needs rewritten. To go through some of the claims;

"Neo-Nazism in Serbia, in the same way as neo-Nazism in Israel, is a paradoxical construction bearing in mind that Serbs were the major victims of Nazism in the Balkans, victims of Ustasha genocide, similar in many respects to holocaust of the Jews." - Nationalist nonsense, no respectable scholar now compares the Ustasha genocide to the Holocaust of the Jews. Bear in mind that the Ustasha genocide was not carried out by the Nazis.

"Although neo-Nazism in its authentic form does not exist in Serbia" - I find that rather unlikely. Neo-Nazism exists in Poland, even though the number of Poles murdered by the Nazis in both absolute and proportionate terms was far greater than the number of Serbs.

"during the campaign of demonization of the Serbs in the 90s" - This is a dead giveaway about the author of this article.

"some ultranationalist organisations, like Nacionalni stroj have been compared with neonazis in the other parts of ex-Yugoslavia which have a very intimate link to Nazism." - This is an obvious swipe at Croatia, and consists of outright hate-speech, not apropriate for an encyclopedia.

Ana Radic (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• This rant against other Wikipedia contributors does not help us to see any issues related to this article. By rejecting other peoples opinions you are not building any legitimacy of your opinion.--71.163.229.192 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I've removed this paragraph for finding it un-sourced. Claims that being anti-gay, anti USA or anti Europe oriented is a form of Neo Nazism do not hold.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments and general problems with the article

There are many problems and issues with this article, mostly WP:SYNTH, some poor refereces and 2 Harv errors remaining.

It looks like a bunch of data and events drawn up in one piece. An experienced reader can also see that the main contributor to the article is passionate about the topic. That is not good if the article is not looking neutral.

• The lead has several problems. History section has multiple problems. It's a mess, honestly. Political groups section seems okay.
  • Could you elaborate on these "problems"? --Vacant0 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• League of Communists of Serbia mentioned in the lead about far far-right politics in Serbia? This has to be a joke. Is it?
  • Removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Who is this Barbara N. Wiesinger? Why should her own definition be the one used in the article? Are there no experts, sociologist, anthropologists or historians from Serbia or Republika Srpska? It seems like a lazy job on your part, sorry. Several reputable Serbian sholars have indeed explored the topic.
  • I've added Wiesinger's occupation. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• During the existence of the state, Serb nationalists sought to form a centralized state.[79][80] And so what? It's a group's political interest. What does it have to do with far right politics in Serbia? Yugoslavia and Serbia are 2 separate states, the last time I checked.
  • I was supposed to remove this a while ago, that sentence is irrelevant in this case. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Russia also seeks to portray Muslims in Serbia as "terrorists" in order to counter Western influence; it also uses religious and cultural influence throughout the SPC.[58] What the heck? This is WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
  • I wasn't able to find more sources that back up this claim, so I've removed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Far-right groups had also organized commemorations and memorial services in churches.[32] Once again, is there some context that I fail to see here or is this a random piece of trivia? Almost anyone can organise a commeration or a memorial service.
  • Removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• BS had criticized the "elite" and pro-Western progressives, and had criticized emigrants from Serbia. And so what? That is their choice as artists and it is not upon us to judge their art.
  • I've removed that, although I'll keep the rest of the sentences about BS intact. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• According to a research, some war veterans also share far-right views.[68] Which research? If it is credible, please provide us with more information, if not, delete the sentence.
  • Kelly referenced a report conducted by the Institute for Security Studies, and it seems like the "also share far-right views" part is not exactly mentioned. I've removed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• One could hardly say that Dveri are far right. They are your average righ-wing conservatives. And that there is no conclusive proof nor consensus that their organisation should be labeled as such.
  • Whether you're talking about their current or historical policies, it is important to mention Dveri. This is not up to debate whatsoever, additional scholarly papers that describe Dveri as far-right exist on the web if you're interested. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ljotić also cooperated with Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović, who was an antisemite and promoted anti-Western ideas. Ljotić's relations with the SOC has been studied in great details in the latest book by historian Rastko Lompar. Many claims, including the claim of his close ties with the SOC - have been debunked. Another thing, Ljotić was a pro-Yugoslav politician, active in Yugoslavia, with many of his voters coming outside modern-day Serbia. It seems that you choose to not give that context, the same way that the fact that Yugoslav army in the fatherland wanted to create a Greater Serbia within Yugoslavia. That context has not been provided either.
  • I've added the mention "Greater Serbia within Yugoslavia", citing Tomasevich. Regarding Ljotić, I would rather prefer looking at his GA-rated article, which cites several reliable historians that all back up the claim that he was antisemitic. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Dimitrije Ljotić, a Serb politician Huh? Yugoslav or Yugoslav Serb could work.
  • Done. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Zbor received a wider support (+1 %) in the last Yugoslav elections.
• Milan Stojadinović, a Serb politician, served as prime minister of Yugoslavia from 1935 to 1939 and embraced fascism during his premiership. Embraced it? Poor choice of words, double check your sources.
  • Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Obraz was also banned by the state. That factoid should be included in the image description.
  • Added, it is still active though, although under a similar name. I've also added that. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Draža Mihailović, the leader of Chetniks during World War II, was rehabilitated in 2015;[128] Context?
  • Added. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• ...and later also cooperated with Ljotić's forces.[99][100 Once again - no context given, which is a great way to present a POV version of historical events. The vast majority of Chetniks had no sympathy for Ljotić's men nor Nazis. Modus vivendi should be mentioned and extra context given, otherwise this is not really informative nor neutral.
  • Removed, Ljotić rather cooperated with Damjanović, not with Mihailović. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• With the help of Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC), Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović, who promoted and inspired far-right individuals, was rehabilitated in 2003.[6] And so what? Most individuals who got their convictions from a communist kangeroo courts have been rehahbillitated.
  • removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Activities of the movement are also regularly reported by Srbin info [sr], a right-wing news portal.[218] It is not a far-right portal, therefore this sentence should be deleted.
  • I agree, I removed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Nova srpska politička misao is NOT a far-right portal and should not be mentioned as such. That is a foolish statement. Their research is widely used, even in some articles (Rujevic's work) used in this very article.
  • I've swapped NSPM with Pravda that is backed up by these sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Saša Radulović, leader of DJB, has been described as a promoter of the alt-right ideology.[148] Is your article about far-right politicians or Serbian right-wing in general? Please make up your mind.
  • I wasn't able to find other sources that describe him as "alt right", so I've removed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

In the current state, the article can hardly achieve GA status. Thanks for your hard work and please make more tweaks so that it could become another GA. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed most of these things that you mentioned. If you think that there are still problems with this article, let me know and I'll look into them. Vacant0 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've got to agree, I worked on this article for over a month, so I believed that there were some errors such as the ones that you mentioned still present in the article. I'll look into re-writing some of the sentences in the lede and history section. Vacant0 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Far-right politics in Serbia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: This article will be reviewed. Governor Sheng (talk · contribs) 08:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, an introductory note to the nominator. My comments serve primarily as suggestions and invitations for discussion. As a reviewer, I am not perfect, so it is possible that I make a mistake. Furthermore, I think it is best to go one step at a time. We start from the first section and will finish with the introduction.

Definition

"In comparison with the Western welfare chauvinism, the Serbian variant argues that minorities do not deserve to benefit from Serbian welfare programs."

- What is Western welfare chauvinism? Are there any similarities or differences with the Serbian version of this form of nationalism?

 Done I've re-worded this a bit. It now states "The development of welfare chauvinism in Serbia has been similar to that in other parts of Europe; they portray minorities as "undeserving" and they argue that minorities do not deserve to benefit from Serbian welfare programs." which is backed up by the same source. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Initially, the far-right focused on other ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia, although they turned towards "internal enemies" in the 2000s."

- Why? I might assume it's because Yugoslavia collapsed, and there were conflicts with other nationalities such as Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Others might not realise this.

 Done Yes, mainly because of the Yugoslav Wars and the 5 October Overthrow. I've amended the sentence. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"At least since the late 2010s, far-right groups also began promoting several narratives regarding migrants, such as referring them as an enemy, and claiming that migrants are criminals or terrorists."

- What has happened in the late 2010s to influence the far-right groups in such a manner?

 Done The migrant crisis. Added it. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right groups had also openly taken part in Victory Day commemorations; their participation is in stark contrast to the anti-communist sentiment that is present in Serbia and other post-socialist countries."

- This is kind of odd, why is that? Is it a pro-Russia thing? Maybe it deserves a mention if so.

 Done I was not the one who added this originally, but it seems that it is because of Russophilia. The source states "A change started in 2009 with a large-scale celebration of the Liberation Day of Belgrade, coinciding with the state visit of Dmitry Medvedev, President of Russia at the time." and "The revival of the state-sponsored commemorations of the People’s Liberation War has went hand in hand with the always closer relations with Russia, which is also key to understanding why political elites and radical right celebrate the past incompatible with their politics.". --Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

- Maybe there should be some sort of an explanation as to why the Serbian far-right is critical of the SFR Yugoslavia's regime on one hand, and on the other is critical of allegedly Western-supported secessionism from it. That's a known fact for me since I'm from Croatia, but others might not get it at a first glance.

 Done I've clarified the reasons (they're backed up by same sources). --Vacant0 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Influence

"Sources claim that between 100 and 300 "foreign fighters" joined the Russo-Ukrainian War on the side of Russia;[65] Aleksandar Vučić, the president of Serbia, claimed that foreign fighters were mercenaries, while others had stated that they were motivated by the sense of "nationalist solidarity"."

"Some foreign fighters had even joined pro-Russian paramilitary groups in Syria."

- These are Serb volunteers? Maybe it's obvious, but I think it should be clarified.

 Done Yes. Added it. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your cooperation and contribution so far. Here are additional comments.

Yugoslavia

"Members of the National Defence (Serbian Cyrillic: Народна одбрана, romanized: Narodna odbrana), a militaristic association, usually sided with Chetniks in conflicts."

- Can we get a link for National Defence... even though I understand it might me a link rot, I think it would be beneficial.

 Done Wikilinked to Narodna Odbrana. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Kosta Pećanac, who headed Chetnik units from the 1930s, embraced chauvinism and began serving as "legal Chetniks" after the formation of Nedić's government."

- Can you explain what a "legal Chetnik" is? Why is he referred to as such? Was there a parallel Chetnik structure that operated legally under Nedić's regime? Or received tacit support from him?

 Done There is not a quite explanation for the "legal Chetnik" description in the source although it seems like that group of Chetniks directly worked for Nedić's regime. I've changed this a bit. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

1990s–2000s

"After the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and up to the Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević in October 2000, far-right conspiracy theories were spread..."

- Why the capital O in Overthrow... Is it a specific name for the event or a general term? This is a minor issue, but it needs to be referred.

 Done It was a typo. Fixed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary period

"Obraz was banned a year later, although it continues to operate under a similar name."

- Why was Obraz banned? Can we get a brief explanation, in a sentence?

 Done It was banned because of their threats that led to the cancellation of the Belgrade Pride event (in the last sentence of the previous section it is stated that Public Prosecutor's office filed this proposal). I've added it with quotation marks (since it's in the RFE source). --Vacant0 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Although a year later, the Identitarian branch in Serbia was dissolved..."

- Why? Was it dissolved internally or by the authorities' decision?

 Done There seems to not be a reason behind the dissolution (in the source at least). --Vacant0 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"A month later, a far-right group harassed and attacked several peace activist groups, including Women in Black, due to their opposition to the denial of Srebrenica massacre."

- Opposition to the denial of the massacre, or opposition to the idea that the massacre wasn't a genocide? I heard of the latter but never heard the massacre itself is denied. I could be wrong.

 Done It's because of the latter. Fixed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

SNP 1389

"It denies the Srebrenica massacre and promotes irredentism..."

- Again, do they deny the massacre or the notion that the massacre itself was a genocide? The source states the latter. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the text, I'll soon move to other technicalities. The narrative itself is very good.

Others

"Far-right organizations such as "Sveti Justin Filozof" and "Nomokanon", had also received media attention."

- We're using quotation marks for Sveti Justin Filozof and Nomokanon in the first sentence, but not in the rest of the section. I think they're not necessary. We didn't use quotation marks for other organisations with non-English names. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Removed quotation marks. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Technical issues

So, there's a problem with MOS:REPEATLINK. I'll list those that I found, if you know of more, you can fix them. Basically, in principle, a hyperlink should be used only once, or as an exception to the rule, more times - in infoboxes, the lead section, and so on.

Here are the links that are used more than one time in the body of the article (not the lead):

• Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
• Yugoslav Wars
• Kosovo
• Dimitrije Ljotić
• World War II
• Chauvinism
• Collaboration with the Axis powers
• Xenophobia
• Historical revisionism
• Vojislav Šešelj
• Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević
• Ivan Stambolić
• Pride parade
• Jovo Bakić
• Ratko Mladić
• 2012 Serbian parliamentary election
• 2015 European migrant crisis
• Electoral threshold
• NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
• COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia
• Leviathan Movement
• 2020 Serbian parliamentary election
• Enough is Enough (party)
• Women in Black
• Abortion
• Clerical fascism
• Croats
• Radovan Karadžić
• Ratko Mladić
• Greater Serbia
• Serbian Party Oathkeepers
• Srđan Nogo
• Hooliganism
• Srebrenica massacre
• Josip Broz Tito
• 2016 Serbian parliamentary election
• Nikolaj Velimirović
• Homophobia
• United Russia
• Historical revisionism
• Vojislav Šešelj
• Socialist Party of Serbia
• Aleksandar Vučić
• Serbian Progressive Party
• Accession of Serbia to the European Union
• Greater Serbia
• Croatia
• Miša Vacić
• Jim Dowson
• Marinka Tepić
• 2022 Serbian general election
• Serbian Orthodox Church
• Authoritarianism
• Boško Obradović
• Srđan Nogo
• Arkan

 Done All done. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally, the links to countries and ethnic groups are discouraged, but having in mind the demographics that might read the article, I think it is advisable to just leave them there... Perhaps a large number of readers won't be familiar with where Montenegro is (not playing down on anybody, but I think it's a fact).

The term "homosexuality" is mentioned in the "Nacionalni stroj" section but linked only later in the "Obraz" section.

 Done Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Links to generally familiar terms that are not necessary (excessive use of hyperlinks)

• Red (in the "Symbolism" section)
• Internet (in the "Influence" section)
• Bulletproof vest (in the "Influence" section)
• Ethnic group (in the "Yugoslavia" section)
• War (in the "Yugoslavia" section)
• Unemployment (in the "1990s–2000s" section)
• Mosque (in the "Nacionalni stroj" section)
• Gangster (in the "Individuals" section)
• Crime (in the "Individuals" section)

 Done Removed those wikilinks. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In the "See also" section, there are also repeated links to - Far-right politics, Neo-Nazism, and Greater Serbia.

 Done Removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, in the "1990s–2000s" section, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is referred to as just "Bosnia", this should be replaced with the full name "Bosnia and Herzegovina". Since in many articles, the term Bosnia is often used only for the Bosnian region.

 Done --Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

All in all, the article meets all the GA criteria, and after these are fixed, the article will be promoted. Good work! --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: All done. Thank you for the review! Vacant0 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)