Talk:Dimitrije Ljotić

3 fingered salute

Please say why he is not the creator of this before deleting a fact, thanks Cosnahang (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC) -

The three-finger salute is hundreds of years older than Ljotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.238.5 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Early life Is there any more information on why the brother was called "Ljota", what it meant, or how it came to be used as a family name?Y if it is really necessary, I think the old style date could be put in a noteY Why was his father translating the Manifesto? Do we know? Seems odd.Y Knez Stanoje? meaning Prince? Was he a royal? An outlaw as far as the Turks were concerned, or in general?Y link SalonikaY suggest "He stayed in the city for nearly a year, and while studying at the Institute of Agriculture he was exposed to the right-wing, proto-fascist ideas of writer Charles Maurras."Y People's Radical Party and Ministry of Justice it is unclear what party he was with when he became a regional deputy in 1930. Is that info available?Y Zbor "support that Zbor received in Serbia", "lack of popularity and political power in Serbia", "Ljotić was an unpopular figure in Serbia", "not strong amongst the Serbian population" and "one that was to be dominated by Serbia" seem incongruous given 1) the banovinas had been created at this point, and 2) one of the organisations absorbed by Zbor was Herzegovinian. Are we really talking about the "ethnic Serb" population of Yugoslavia here? I know the sources may call it that, but it is important to be as clear as possible about the political subdivisions of Yugoslavia at the time, while retaining the meaning.Y Elections the whole section could be condensed into a single reasonably small paragraph. See my comments about criteria 3b. "promote German economic interests in Serbia" - see my comment above "Serbia" aboveY Activities in neutral Yugoslavia "One of the only public figures in Serbia" - see my comment above "Serbia" aboveY Occupation of Yugoslavia link Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to "German-occupied Serbia" at first mentionY suggest "selecting" instead of "sorting out"Y link puppet governmentY suggest "In conversation with" instead of "Conversing with"Y suggest you replace "the administration of the Serbian puppet government" with the initial Serbian puppet government, known as the Commissioner Administration"Y "economic commissioner" rather than "economic commissariat" A commissariat is generally an entity rather than a role/positionY "disliked the idea of playing"Y "commissioners" rather than "commissars". The term commissar is strongly associated with communismY "appointing Nedić as leaderY my point about lack of context for the "Appeal to the Serbian Nation"Y SDK, political activities and propaganda efforts suggest "by November, Ljotić was openly denouncing Mihailović"Y as noted elsewhere, the nature of the Kragujevac massacre should be inserted to provide some context, including numbers killedY
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm not sure about whether the External link is actually a copyvio link. What is the copyright status of his work?Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	there are a few places where context or some basic details are needed. The SDK involvement in the Kragujevac massacreY and the Appeal to the Serbian NationY beg for more info Given his fairly prolific writing, a list of works would be appropriateY while not addressed, this is probably more Milhist ACR than GAN
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The election coverage is overly detailed considering his party got less than 1% of the vote, the table really is unnecessaryY
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	the only issue here is the lack of any detail about the SDK involvement in the Kragujevac massacreY
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I nearly quickfailed this because of the number of image licensing issues the infobox image doesn't have a date it was published or author, so the PD-Slovenia tag is unsupported. Unless publishing information is available (ie a paper or magazine) I suggest you use a non-free rationaleY File:Serb-mountain-retreat.jpg also has non-compliant license info, if the author is unknown, PD-Old can't work, as we have no idea when the author died. It would also need a US tag for cover the Commons serversY File:Zbor.gif it is unclear why it is ineligible. Surely someone designed the Zbor emblem?Y File:Draža Mihailović propaganda poster.jpg isn't right either, I have no idea what the copyright status of it isY File:Gvtbr36 beograd.jpg doesn't seem to be likely either, published before 1946 and the author died before that date?Y File:Posters11.jpg same as the other posterY Missing alt text on images for accessibility (not a GA requirement)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm leaving this till I've seen the image issues are all sortedY
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold for seven dayspassing now

Well-written:

• The source doesn't explicate. It only explains that the Ljotićs were descended from two brothers who originated in what is modern-day Greece and that one went by the nickname "Ljota", which is where the surname Ljotić originates. My guess is that "Ljota" is somehow derived from the given name Đorđe (Djordje), but the source doesn't say.
• I've removed the old style bit because I find it to be irrelevant.
• According to Popov: Vladimir Ljotić, the father of "the convinced anti-liberal and anti-Communist Dimitrije" translated the The Communist Manifesto into Serbian. I agree that it's quite unusual (and ironic) that this is what happened. As for why he did this, the source doesn't say. Politics as Development: The Emergence of Political Parties in Nineteenth Century Serbia by Gale Stokes explains that the father translated the manifesto in Pančevo in 1870 and that he also translated the works of socialist thinker Ferdinand Lassalle.
• Was Knez Stanoje a royal? I don't think so. The source doesn't suggest that. All that it says is his maternal great-grandfather Knez Stanoje was killed by the Turks in Jan. 1804. I would assume that he was killed during the Slaughter of the Knezes (Seča knezova), but the source fails to go into detail.
• I've made the copy-edit you requested re: Charles Maurras.

More to come. 23 editor (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

People's Radical Party and Ministry of Justice:

• "...virtually all political parties in Yugoslavia had been banned since the declaration of King Alexander's dictatorship in 1929". My guess is that Ljotić was in office directly representing the king, although the source doesn't go into detail.

Zbor: Good point. The creation of so-called banovinas rendered Serbia non-existant in a political sense.

How would you suggest "I retain the meaning" (since the sources are referring to Serbia in a geographic sense; that is, in its pre-1912 borders)? It's important to remember that the territory of modern Serbia is where Ljotić found the most support (particularly around the town of Smederevo). Phrases such as "support that Zbor received in Serbia", "lack of popularity and political power in Serbia", "Ljotić was an unpopular figure in Serbia" and "not strong amongst the Serbian population" are referring to "Serbia" in this geographic sense. I consider it misleading to replace, for example, "support that Zbor received in Serbia" with "support that Zbor received from Serbs" because Byford wasn't talking about Yugoslavia's Serbs in general, just the inhabitants of the region of Serbia (Serbs and non-Serbs, alike). The phrase "...one that was to be dominated by Serbia" refers to what Ljotić wished for Yugoslavia to be and shouldn't be altered. From what I gather, he intended for a region called Serbia to be created within the borders of Yugoslavia, which would subsequently fall under the domination of this region. All in all, I'm a bit unsure as to what I should do to with regard to this "Serbs/Serbia" question. Would you prefer I use Danube Banovina and Morava Banovina throughout (i.e. "lack of popularity and political power in the Danube and Morava banovinas")? 23 editor (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to refer to it is to explain that Serbia had effectively been disestablished in a political sense in 1929, then describe the area involved, ie "the territory of the former Kingdom of Serbia" (with a link) at first mention, so that readers understand that the when the term "Serbia" is subsequently used (up to 1941), that is the area being referred to? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

All toolkit checks (except alt text) were OK. I'm done here, placing on hold for seven days for unaddressed points to be dealt with. Good work so far. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

All done (I think) except for Ljotić's complete bibliography, which I have not been able to find anywhere. Most of his works seem to have been crushed together into 12 volumes published by a pro-Ljotić group in Belgrade in 2001. 23 editor (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ljotić photo

I'm in the process of converting File:Dimitrije Ljotić.jpg from PD-Slovenia to non-free rationale. This means the photo must be removed from commons and I'm somewhat unsure as to how that works exactly. Any advice? 23 editor (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You go to commons and nominate it for deletion (left hand side in the Tools bar), using Template:Fair use. Then come back to en WP and upload a new version with the NFR. You don't have to wait for the commons deletion to occur to upload a new version on en WP with the NFR. If you want some tips on a bullet-proof NFR, have a look at the NFR for the infobox pic of Pavle Djurisic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a non-free alternative image and nominated File:Dimitrije Ljotić.jpg for deletion over at commons. However, User:Amitie 10g states that the previous photograph was already PD . From what I gather, it's difficult to justify having a non-free file for a biography if a PD one already exists. Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the reasons for deleting the file. The problem with them is than the Deletion request was opened using {{Fair use}} as reason, as Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) wrongly instructed to you to do them. In Commons, the normal Deletion requests SHOULD NOT be opened with {{speedy}} as reason; files can be Nominated for deletion (for discussable cases) or tagged for Speedy deletion (for obvious copyvio or vandalism), but not both. Before nominating or tagging for speedy deletion any other file again, please read Commons:Deletion policy.

If the file effectively is non-free and/or not in the Public domain, just use {{speedy}} (or {{copyvio}} or {{fair use}}) if you have sufficient evidences. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the bum steer. Commons really isn't my thing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbia and Yugoslav territorial sub-divisions

I've added a paragraph explaining what happened to the region of Serbia geopolitically during interwar Yugoslavia. 23 editor (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Serb-mountain-retreat.jpg

I've added a PD-US-1923 tag to the file. 23 editor (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kragujevac massacre

I've expanded the timeline of the massacre to include a whole paragraph, including why it occurred and what the extent of the SDK's involvement was. 23 editor (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I missed that. Passing now. Well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Chaos or subordination

In February 1944, Ljotić sent the 2nd Battalion of the SDK 5th Regiment to Montenegro to assist Đurišić's Chetniks. Of 893 men who were sent, 543 were killed in actions against the Partisans. On 6 September, Mihailović took control of several Serbian collaborationist formations, including the SDK.[68] Ljotić sent Ratko Parežanin, a Zbor member and editor of Naša Borba, and a detachment of thirty men to Montenegro to persuade Đurišić to withdraw his Chetniks towards German-held Slovenia, where Ljotić planned to mass Serbian forces and launch a major offensive against the NDH.[69] On 4 October, Ljotić, alongside Nedić and about 300 Serbian government officials, escaped from Belgrade with German officials.[70] At the end of October, Ljotić and SDK forces arrived in the city of Osijek. It was here that German official Hermann Neubacher agreed to arrange their safe passage towards the Slovenian coast.[69]

This is the common way of representing things, but it is deeply wrong. Ljotić had no authority to do anything of this. SDK was under German tactical command, and no SDK unit moved anywhere unless it was a part of some German plan. The collaborators like Nedić and Ljotić could only make combinations with some background intentions, and present it to Germans as useful for them, in order to gain authorization. But, essentially, it was the Germans who had the last say. Many historians write in this manner, but this is because they don't fully understand military matters, and war especially. I suggest avoiding these sources in matters like this, and finding others, who present these relations less ridiculously.--Gorran (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That may be true, certainly the Germans would not have allowed the deployment of a battalion of their auxiliaries to be deployed such a distance without their authority. It would be strange if Ljotic was not consulted or that he didn't encourage the Germans to support Djurisic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dimitrije Ljotić/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It is not ZBOR but Zbor. Zbor means council, assemblage, congress. The other facts are correct, and they are chosen well, by my oppinion.

Last edited at 07:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)