Talk:Yugoslav coup d'état

Active discussions
Yugoslav coup d'état 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
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2018WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
December 6, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Is there any need for 1941 in the article title?Edit

Is there another coup d'état in Yugoslavia that we need to differentiate this one from? Even if there was, I believe we could easily make the case that this one would be the primary topic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Would you recommend "Coup d'état in Yugoslavia" or "Yugoslav coup d'état"? The former appears to be slightly more popular in Google books. --PRODUCER (TALK) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I make it 38 to 35. No commonname, so why don't we go for the simplest, which in my view would be "Yugoslav coup d'état"?

Dated or not datedEdit

Peacemaker, the event is actually mostly known as the Coup d´état of March 27, and you wanting to have that information removed is unecessary. One thing is to have a "simple and straightforward" title, and another to be completely informative within the article. Your edit removed information from the lede section. The information deserves to be in the article. Unfortunatelly I don´t have much time lately to discuss this in detail, so I leave it to your own judgement by now. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in English it's not. [1]. The lead clearly states the date it occurred, so no information has been removed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The royal takeover of 6 January 1929 is commonly called a "coup d'état". It was more of a coup than this one. I would have opposed this move. I agree with FkpCascais that the date is very commonly associated with this coup. Srnec (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Argument from assertion. The evidence (Google Books result above) does not support your position. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Your search is flawed. Try these:
Then these:
At GoogleScholar, I get 1,990 results for —yugoslavia "coup d'état" 1929— and 2,880 results for —yugoslavia "coup d'état" 1941—. Whether or not there is a primary topic, you were wrong to call this the only coup in Yugoslavia's history. The coup in 1929, of course, resulted in the country being named Yugoslavia, but that doesn't mean it wasn't called that before. The 1929 coup was referred to as such at the time (cf. "A Dictatorship in Yugoslavia", Advocate of Peace through Justice 91, 2 (1929): 77–78). Tomasevich, who is righly one of our most utilised sources for Yugoslavia during World War II, in his book War and Revolution ... associates the coup with its date throughout: only once in 19 mentions does he not use the date 27 March 1941 (or 25 March plus "two days later") to refer to it. On p. 168 he says "Belgrade coup". Obviously, he has no need of saying "Yugoslav coup", but isn't it interesting that he always references the date? Srnec (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Certainly happy to discuss, I'm certainly not going to die in a ditch about it. Although the description of Alexander's proclamation as a coup seems a bit over the top on face value. Nevertheless, I'll have a look at your search results and will consult Tomasevich x 2, Pavlowitch, Milazzo and similar texts and will respond. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, if we start with the blunt instrument of the Google Books results, there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME for this subject. I count 29, 31 and 22 for your top three linked searches, compared to 38 for "Coup d'état in Yugoslavia" and 35 for "Yugoslav coup d'état". In fact quite a few of the searches had hits for the same book (that uses several versions). Tomasevich 1969 and Hehn are both examples of that. IMO, the issue then comes down to WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURAL. Precise enough as to be unambiguously about this subject and not the "royal coup", and natural per one of the various permutations. Ramet (in The Three Yugoslavias), doesn't use the word "coup" to describe what happened on 6 January 1929, she refers to it as the "Sixth of January dictatorship" and Vucinich 1969 also steers clear of the word "coup" and uses ""proclamation of the royal dictatorship on January 6, 1929". Tomasevich refers to it as "introducing personal dictatorship". In fact, the current article on the subject is titled 6 January Dictatorship, which I think reflects what the sources I have copies of call it. In particular, Ramet and Tomasevich cover the background to both events in some detail as part of a historical examination of the history of Yugoslavia. I think if you add the fact that it wasn't even the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 6 January 1929 there is no real reason to amend the current title. I would be willing to consider adding "of 1941" to it in the interests of precision. Your thoughts?
A dictatorship and a coup are two different things. Frankly, when I saw this title my first thought was, "Which Yugoslav coup?" I suspect many readers, even those who don't know much about Yugoslavia, will have a similar reaction. It's not as if coups are the rare sort of thing that happen only once or twice in a country's history. For most countries they happen regularly. I also thought the WWII coup was strongly associated with a specific day of the year: 27 March. That, at least, is how I seem to recall always seeing it mentioned: as the coup of 27 March [1941]. Our article titles need be no more precise than necessary, but when they are descriptive they should not appear to be generic. Srnec (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The point about precision is that "of 1941" is all that is required to clearly identify which coup this is. Firstly, it is actually the only "Yugoslav" one, and the year then makes it clear which one (for those that might be confused about when the country became Yugoslavia). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
But "of March 27" is also all that is required to clearly identify which coup this is. Likewise "Yugoslav officer's coup" and "Yugoslav royal coup" would be precise. (It is the only one that occurred in a state named Yugoslavia, but it is not the only Yugoslav one. That would be anachronism, like insisting that Galileo wasn't Italian because it wasn't 1861 yet, or insisting there are no more Burmese people now that it's called Myanmar officially.) Srnec (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"of March 27" would not be as concise or precise. "of 1941" clearly shows this coup occurred during WWII. I have suggested adding "of 1941" to address the issue you have raised, and have provided policy-based reasoning for it being all that is required. If you agree that "of 1941" addresses the issue you have raised, I am happy for you to move it, or I will do so when you let me know you agree. If not, I suggest you RM it, as I can see no policy-based reason to move it to a title with "March 27" in it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think FkpCascais had a legitimate point here. All articles on major historical events reflect the way these events are commonly referred to in their lands, with reference to the original language (See October Revolution as a case in point). I see no need to make an exception here. I am growing confident that Peacemaker has sought to effectively cast this Yugoslavian event as a British history event.Axxxion (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
You can grow confident in anything you like, but you are wrong. This discussion was about the title of the article, which has been stable at its current one for several years. It is not about including alternative names which haven't been shown as being common in English, and it is also not about including translations into Serbo-Croat in the first sentence. They are unnecessary and interrupt the flow of the first sentence. This information can be provided in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67: But that is an established practice in WP for topics outside the Anglophone space, as per MOS:FORLANG: See French Revolution, Russian Civil War, Spain, Germany, etc.Axxxion (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
French Revolution is still bad example. ....if an FA or GA review was done that stuff would be removed as per MOS:FORLANG "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology".--Moxy (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Touche. There isn't consensus for this edit at present. If you continue to editwar over it Axxxion, you will be reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
No etymology here at all. That′s precisely the point: that in the country′s language the name is totally different.Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Operation BoraEdit

G'day all, PRODUCER and I have decided to put some structure around our work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles by creating a special project we are calling Operation Bora, the first stage of which is setting the scene for what happened in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 through this article, Invasion of Yugoslavia and a new article provisionally titled Occupation of Yugoslavia, which we intend will be the first of a series of Good topics. We are keen to identify other editors who may be interested in contributing, with the idea of eventually formalising the special project as a joint endeavour of WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Yugoslavia. So feel free to let either of us know if you are interested. The more the merrier! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of inline attribution for Tomasevich and RametEdit

An IP editor is insisting on in-text attribution of the views of Jozo Tomasevich and Sabrina Ramet regarding the weaknesses of inter-war Yugoslavia. In the case of Tomasevich, the IP has included the description "Croat-American" and has stated that he was a "military historian". It is not clear what the motivation is behind including Tomasevich's heritage, or why he has been described as a "military historian". His historical work was (self-)described as covering "politics, ideology and military operations", not just military operations. Anyone who has read his works knows he was not just a military historian. I have deleted "military" as it is unsupported by any source. Given the points Tomasevich made about Yugoslavia include economic ones, I have included the fact that he was an economic professor. I await an explanation of why it is relevant or even necessary to refer to his Croat-American background, or why, given no source has been produced that challenges him or Ramet, there is a need for in-text attribution for either of them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that this issue can be resolved easily:
  1. If cited assertions are supported only by Tomasevich or Ramet then IP editor was right to carefully attribute those assertion to them.
  2. If you are able to present more sources which support the same assertion then do it and remove the in-text attribution.
I agree with you about ethnicity or heritage of the authors. Its irrelevant. As well as the motivation of IP editor. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the ethnicity, I will be working towards FA on this article and am sure the other point will be addressed in due course. In the meantime I will leave the in-text attribution in place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to make a quick summary here:
1. In the Background section Peacemaker67 has summarized 23 years of Yugoslav history 1918-1941 (with all of the economic, political, social, religious, cultural, and ethnic issues contained within that time span) in eleven sentences.
2. He has done so by relying on the historical assessment of two people.
3. He seems to be objecting to providing the readers with the very basic biographical info about these two individuals such as their names and professional and cultural background because he says their respective assessments of the 1918-1941 period in Yugoslavia are in agreement with one another.
There's a lot more to say when explaining the various weaknesses of the Yugoslav kingdom during the interbellum, and I will do so with your kind permission as soon as I get some time.
Meanwhile, I would simply like to see Tomasevich's and Ramet's opinions clearly attributed to them because they're neither gospel nor established historical fact. Further still, including their cultural and professional background serves as nothing more than providing context for the reader. What one does for a living and cultural circumstances where one got formed as a human being are certainly worthy of mention.99.225.202.45 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Your point about making a summary of the inter-war period in however many sentences are there is well-made. I have no objection to naming the authors and their professional status, however, no mention of Ramet's heritage was added, but Tomasevich's was. Why did you feel it was not necessary in Ramet's case but that it was in Tomasevich's case? Any disinterested person such as myself would have good reason to think it was because you consider Tomasevich's Croat ancestry caused bias in his work. My view is that Tomasevich shows no discernible pro-Croat bias, and Ramet's analysis serves to reinforce that. I am unaware of any academic review of his work that indicates any bias. I certainly have no intention of identifying every author from the former Yugoslavia by ethnicity each time their work is cited, and that is frankly not the way WP is written. I too will be expanding this section significantly with lots of other sources in the near future, and the article will of course reflect the consensus of the sources or it will compare and contrast them as appropriate. At present the limited consensus of Ad and myself is that the ethnic information for Tomasevich is not required. I am aware it is not a !vote and it is a small sample. If you believe you have a case for inclusion, a RfC is probably the way to go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't include Ramet's heritage because I simply don't know what her cultural background is. She doesn't have a Wiki entry in English and a cursory Google search returns a bunch of stuff in German that I couldn't be bothered to translate and make sense of (at a glance I saw references to Norway, US, and Germany but don't really know what, when or why). But that of course didn't occur to you because "me not listing Ramet's heritage for unknown reasons" fits too nicely in your implied concoction that I consider Tomasevich to have a pro-Croat bias simply because I'm listing who he is!? Why wouldn't you assume good faith there? And also, what is the big deal in mentioning who someone is if it's a piece of info we definitely know?99.225.202.45 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I still believe that Peacemaker67 is right when it comes to ethnicity of the authors, especially in case of Tomasevich.
  • I also think that Peacemaker67 is right that IP editor made a couple of very good points here. There are different positions about 23 years of Yugoslav history. Position of Tomasevich and Ramet is not the only one. Therefore it would be good to avoid too heavily relying on them, or on sources which support the same position.
  • The IP's observation is valid for many other articles about the history of Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your approval ;-) I have never had any objection to editors who actually want to edit any article about Yugoslavia as long as they use reliable, published sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of memoirs or articles by protagonists as sourcesEdit

Cvetkovic and Knezevic (and Mirkovic etc) wrote about the coup after the war, and obviously have their biases. Their writings have been examined extensively by academics. Using their writings isn't necessary or desirable in a WP article on the coup. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment should have been written as question. Carefully attributed statements of protagonists in their memoirs are necessary and desirable when they present their opinion about important aspects of the events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If attributed in-line and their involvement is noted, their credibility should also be measured by third party academics where possible. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Yugoslav foreign policy..." SectionEdit

I do not see much structural logic in having this as a section that follows Background section. Methinks "Yugoslav foreign policy..." (with all its subsections) ought to be a subsection in "Background" and probably trimmed significantly: the topic is the coup, not the Kingdom of Yugoslavia′s interbellum political history.Axxxion (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to understanding the coup. Note that starting a talk section then reverting a reversion is not in accordance with BRD. Get consensus for your changes here, then edit the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
But you did not understand what i wrote -- read again carefully.Axxxion (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I understood it fully. There is no set structure for the article, it is not restricted to the number of sections you think it should have. It was created to clearly break down the background and developments that led to the coup. There is nothing illogical about the structure, and the detail is necessary due to the lack of detailed quality article(s) about the matters explained here. Such a situation is common on WP, and I see no reason whatsoever for any trimming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sourced additionsEdit

I do not understand the purpose and the basis for the wholesale reverts ([2] and prior) of my edits that added legitimate sourced info to this obviously seriously deficient and lopsided article. Its status does not preclude legitimate edits. I find reverts by Peacemaker67 disruptive, at the very least.Axxxion (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My only possible explanation (that I hope is incorrect) could be that Peacemaker67 seeks to present this coup (in both senses) as the sole victory (or blunder?) of the UK SOE, as he essentially bowdlerises all material that speaks of the USSR′s role in the events, which is undeniable, — all the way to deleting the subsection on Soviet–Yugoslavia non-aggression Pact, which was the most immediate international corollory of the coup. And the definition in the Infobox of the successful coup′s Outcome as ″Axis invasion of Yugoslavia″ was outright ludicrous. How can such activites be justified?Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Au contraire. You are making edits using a wholly unreliable source, which I have already pointed out. Savich is a blogger, not a historian. I have removed all material sourced to Savich and all Savich citations. You need to explain what additional material you have sourced from Savich where there were several citations, one of which was from Savich, and trim the material appropriately. That fact that you think Savich is a reliable source brings into question whether these other sources you are using are reliable themselves. You will need to justify their reliability here. You have also made changes to the structure of the article which haven't been discussed here, and are edit-warring to keep them in place. The appropriate place to discuss these issues is on the talk page, not via edit summaries. The consensus promoted state of the article is what is being changed, and you want to make those changes, so you must justify them here. I have no problem with people wanting to edit any article, but you are trying to take ownership of the article yourself by your edits, pushing your own perspective on the subject. Any further edit-warring regarding Savich or the structure of the article will be reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Peacemaker67 will you please be so kind to quote part of wikipedia policy which allows editors to remove substantial parts of articles (like you did with this diff ie) because of the citation style used?User:Antidiskriminator/signing template--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Antidiskriminator. If I do not revert these edits, made with the incorrect citation style, it is no longer GA-class (criteria 2a). The article has been edited using sfn citations and full citations at the bottom. It is not too much to ask that if editors wish to edit it, they maintain its GA-class status and comply with the existing citation style, in fact, MOS:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR are clear on this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 English is not my native language so I was maybe unclear with my question. Let me try to clarify it.
  • I did not ask you what would happen if you do not revert these edits.
  • I did not ask you what is the citation style used in the article.
  • I did not ask you to point to some policies.
  • I did not ask you what is not too much to ask from other editors,
I can not repeat what I asked because I self-limited the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero. Therefore I politely ask you to read my question again and reply to my question if you can. If not, please be so kind to revert yourself. User:Antidiskriminator/signing template 2/2 comments--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator. I am not responsible for your self-imposed talk page restrictions. I have asked for a community view on my actions at ANI, you are free to comment there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation style used in this articleEdit

The sfn citation style is used in this article, with full citations provided for all sources. All editors wishing to edit this article need to use the established sfn style, per WP:CITESTYLE. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, additions to this article should use the sfn citation style. It is not my job to change them to the existing style, that responsibility lies with the editor adding the material. I will shortly start removing material that is not cited in the existing sfn style. Learn how to do it, or stop adding information to the article until you do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Do not invent Rules. Text should be sourced, this is the only requirement. You will be reported for vandalism, if you continue.Axxxion (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not inventing rules, I've explained what the policy is, comply with it if you want to edit the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any attempt to fix the citation style in article space, I have moved this here until it is correctly cited using the sfn style, per the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker67. You might have good faith ends in mind but your edits are objectively destructive. If there is sth wrong in style of citation, in YOUR opinion (I do not see any problem whatsoever) -- go ahead and fix it. I have no time to do research on such convoluted and contrived quibble.Axxxion (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Just comply with the policy. I'm taking this to ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-Aggression Pact with USSREdit

On 5 April 1941, the new government of Yugoslavia and the USSR signed the Treaty of Friendship and Non-Aggression. The treaty had been secretly prepared throughout March and early April during the talks between the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Yugoslavian Ambassador in Moscow Milan Gavrilović.[1][2] According to Gen Pavel Sudoplatov, Milan Gavrilović was a fully recruited Soviet agent, but he writes that they knew that Gavrilović also had ties with the British.[3][2]

Initially, members of the new Yugoslavian government had sought a military alliance with the USSR but this was rejected by the Soviet side, the USSR being bound by the non-aggression treaty with Germany then. The final relevant article of the Treaty read as follows: ″In the event of aggression against one of the contracting parties on the part of a third power, the other contracting party undertakes to observe a policy of friendly relations towards that party″[4], which fell short of a commitment to provide military assistance. The USSR leadership accepted the ensuing German invasion of Yugoslavia without any criticism.[5][6][7][8]

Development of the coupEdit

The plotters were immediately welcomed by the top clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church (the Holy Synod of the Bishops happened to be in session on 27 March) and personally by Patriarch Gavrilo V who spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime.[9][10] Serbian Communists, who were largely an underground force, took part in pro-putsch rallies too.[11]

Some of the plotters had previously been involved with secretive Black Handers; and there is evidence that Dušan Simović had spent at least two weeks in Moscow in early March 1941.[12][13][14] According to Soviet General Pavel Sudoplatov, the coup was actively supported by Soviet intelligence agencies, GRU and NKVD, following Stalin′s instructions, with a view to strengthening the USSR′s strategic position in the Balkans.[15] A group of Soviet intelligence officers that included Major Gen Solomon Milshtein and Vasily Zarubin was sent to Belgrade to assist the overthrow.[3][2] Activities of the Soviets in Yugoslavia had been boosted by the establishment of a Soviet mission in Belgrade in 1940; the Soviet Union had been developing its intelligence network through left-wing journalists and academics at the University of Belgrade.[16] The German embassy in Belgrade was certain that the coup had been organised by British and Soviet special agencies.[2]

Legacy and historical evaluationEdit

Dr Sue Onslow, in a bid to place the coup in the broader context of the of British policy towards Yugoslavia between the outbreak of the Second World War and the events on 27 March 1941, writes that the coup was a big propaganda victory for Britain, as it "proved a tremendous, if ephemeral, boost to British morale, coming rapidly upon the victories against Italian forces in North Africa and The Sudan"; it also was "a much-needed fillip to the ‘upstart’ service Special Operations Executive created by Dalton".[17]


References

  1. ^ 6. 4. 1941.: ″U Moskvi potpisan pakt o prijateljstvu i nenapadanju između vlade SSSR-a i vlade Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Pakt je u ime vlade SSSR-a potnisao Vjačeslav Molotov, ministar inostranih poslova, a u ime vlade Kraljevine Jugoslavije Milan Gavrilović, jugoslovenski poslanik u Moskvi.″
  2. ^ a b c d Roy Medvedev and Zhores Medvedev. Poklon Moskvi sa Balkana
  3. ^ a b Sudoplatov 1994, p. 119.
  4. ^ Договор о дружбе и ненападении между Союзом Советских Социалистических Республик и Королевством Югославии docs.cntd.ru
  5. ^ Решетникова О. Н. К вопросу о советско-югославском договоре о дружбе и ненападении // Международные отношения и страны Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы. pp. 110-123.
  6. ^ Как Сталин «кинул» Югославию RISS
  7. ^ Договор о дружбе и ненападении между СССР и Югославией от 5 апреля 1941 г. в освещении советской печати
  8. ^ Dr. Đoko M. Slijepčević. Jugoslavija uoči i za vreme Drugog Svetskog Rata, Minhen, 1978, p. 27.
  9. ^ Milorad Tomanić. Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj, Beograd, 2001.
  10. ^ MEMOARI PATRIJARHA SPRSKOG GAVRILA II
  11. ^ Branko Petranović. Srpski narod u ustanku // SRBIJA U DRUGOM SVETSKOM RATU, p.190.
  12. ^ Apis’s Men: the Black Hand Conspirators after the Great War, Institute for Balkan Studies, Dragan Bakić, 2015
  13. ^ Игорь Бухаркин. „Черная рука" в Кремле (Black Hand in Kremlin) Kommersant, 21.05.2006.
  14. ^ Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu
  15. ^ Sudoplatov 1994, p. 118–119.
  16. ^ Dr Sue Onslow. Britain and the Belgrade Coup of 27 March 1941 Revisited Electronic Journal of International History (8), 2005, p. 28–29.
  17. ^ Dr Sue Onslow. Britain and the Belgrade Coup of 27 March 1941 Revisited Electronic Journal of International History (8), 2005, p. 2–3.

BRD on native language nameEdit

I see a lot of EW, some with edit summaries referring to talk, but I don't see the talk itself. Whatever that talk may be, it obviously isn't helping, because the dumb EW goes on. So, maybe we should actually follow BRD here. Stop EW and discuss.

Immediately after the opening words The Yugoslav coup d'état in this article, the following has been added and removed several times:

(Serbo-Croatian: Пуч 27. Марта 1941./Puč 27. Marta 1941.).

Myself, per MOS:FORLANG, it seems okay to include, and I see no reason to exclude. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

incomprehensible text...zero use to our English readers. ..zero results for that unreadable text.....junk spam that does not help our readers at all...in other words zero research value.....Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/Op-ed--Moxy (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The original thread on the topic is old, it is the second section on this page now. I think this is a plain case of following the Guideline cited by User:A D Monroe III. It has a caveat referring to etymology, which quite clearly does not apply here (unlike many cases where it could be actually invoked but where we have an original language name nonetheless). Calling other editors′ edits "junk", Moxy, does not measure up to a valid argument and may violate certain regulations and Policies such as WP:CIV. BTW, would you google a Japanese word in Canadian Google too? Try Google.rs - much more to the point and do not google both versions (you are certain to have a few hundred hits straight off): apparently you are totally outside the regional theme: the stroke in the name divides same phrase written in two scripts, one in Roman script, the other in Cyrillic (not junk, just a Greek-based Slavic script). The dots after digits that may likewise appear as junk to you, due to your ignorance and rashness to judge, is part of the text and signify in Serbian (as well as in German) that it is an ordinal number. Axxxion (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The requirement to initiate discussion per BRD lies with the person who has been reverted. Axxxion tried to carry out this discussion in a thread unrelated to this issue, and I did engage there. However, he has not tried to achieve consensus here, he just makes a comment here then reverts to his preferred version. This is the English Wikipedia. What function does this addition achieve, other than breaking up the flow of the lead sentence with unnecessary translations and redundancy? MOS:FORLANG says a single foreign language equivalent name CAN be included, not that it must. But this is not a single foreign language term. It is a claimed significant alternative title in English, to which has been added translations in two scripts. If it was a significant alternative title in English (for which no evidence has been provided as yet, merely claims) then it would be just the English alternative and in bold, not the translations. The translations can be provided in the body. My question is, what benefit is this addition to the average reader of this article? None that I can see, the date of the coup is already included in the lead sentence, providing it with the claimed significant alternative title is redundant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Peacemaker: too many meaningless words, ZERO common sense: vry unEnglish, I would say. Sleep well and have nice dreams.Axxxion (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Page number needed for "Memoirs of Gavrilo V" citationEdit

G'day Axxxion, the sentence "The plotters were immediately welcomed by the top clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church (the Holy Synod of the Bishops happened to be in session on 27 March) and personally by Patriarch Gavrilo V who spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime." is sourced to Tomanić and the Patriarch's memoirs. I found the relevant pages of Tomanić where he mentions Gavrilo V speaking on Belgrade radio, and added that to the citation, although I wanted to check something with you before I edited the sentence to just that. Leaving aside the reliability of memoirs for a moment, there is no page number for this passage in the memoirs. My ability to accurately search for phrases in Cyrillic is very limited, and I have been unable to verify this material. Could you please provide a page number(s) for the passage(s) that mention the synod welcome and the Patriarch speaking in front of mass rallies? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67. The pages would be 399, 401–411. These links could be added as well, if you see it as appropriate: Šta se stvarno desilo 27. marta, a nisu vas učili u školi (FOTO) (VIDEO) on Telegraf.rs, or this: Vojni puč i demonstracije u Beogradu 27.marta 1941. Also, to be on the safe side, the passage ″...spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime″ be better modified as ″spoke publicly in support of the King and the new regime multiple times, including over the radio″ — feel free to amend for better style and coherence.Axxxion (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll incorporate that information. BTW, savremenaistorija.com isn't a reliable source, as it doesn't have any information about who writes its articles, or the bonafides of the publishers. Generally, a reliable publication process (editorial board etc) is needed at a minimum. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I agree, but most of the publications in the Balkans are quite nonchalant about sourcing, generally, (facts normally do not matter either, as you may know). That said, a myth, if believed, is a powerful force in its own right.Axxxion (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Generally there seems to be a lot of yellow press there (and everywhere these days). Telegraf.rs might be reliable, and does seem to have at least an editorial group and lists its journalists on the site, but I am steering clear of using it because it is really unfamiliar to me. I prefer to use Novosti, RTS, Politika etc, although on some topics even they can be far from the academic consensus. Personally, I'm not really comfortable with using Gavrilo's memoirs, but on the basis that anything from it is attributed in-line and the material is not exceptional, I can live with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with Politika is that the most interesting publications of theirs are not available on the net, only in print.Axxxion (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Information required on sourceEdit

G'day Axxxion. What is Решетникова О. Н. К вопросу о советско-югославском договоре о дружбе и ненападении // Международные отношения и страны Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы. pp. 110-123? I have been unable to match it on Worldcat. Can you provide a ISBN/ISSN or OCLC for this work? Is it a book or article? If article, what journal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Full details on this publication (not book) in an academic journal РЕФЕРАТИВНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ СЕРИЯ 5 (collection of articles - сборник статей): Международные отношения и страны Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы в период фашистской агрессии на Балканах и подготовки нападения на СССР (сентябрь 1940 - июнь 1941) / отв. Ред. Гибианский Л. Я. , случ С. З. - М. : ин-т славяноведения и балканистики РАН (Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences http://inslav.ru/page/institute-slavic-studies-russian-academy-sciences ), 1992. - 166 с. (the total number of pages)

The title К вопросу о советско-югославском договоре о дружбе и ненападении (″On the issue of Soviet-Yugoslavia treaty on non-aggression″) refers to a particular article by Reshetnikova, apparently the only ever research on this topic (Yugo-UR Pact) based on the Soviet archive docs.Axxxion (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have located the full details now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of srpska.ru websiteEdit

I don't believe the website srpska.ru is reliable. The "editor-in-chief", is apparently a machinist. It seems to be essentially a blog/forum drawing in Serb nationalists in Russia. I've deleted it from the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of segodnia.ruEdit

What are the bonafides of this website? It appears to be some sort of mouthpiece of the Russian Department of Information? Does it have an editorial board etc? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but the page shows authentic docs. Why not?Axxxion (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
How are they "authentic"? On RISS the article doesn't even have a credited author, and although it does have authors on segodnia, who are they? There is no information about them or any editorial board. It's just not reliable. That is the basis on which we use sources. If they are unreliable we don't use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomanic bookEdit

Peacemaker67, I changed the page number as per the print book I have looked up — to 175 (also according to the list of chapters in the online version). But if one looks at the relevant text in electronic version, one would need to go to a page that is numbered as 187, as was before (the chapter is titled KADA EPISKOPI ZAGUSLAJU). Feel free to revert that. But I would suggest we remove the inline reference to Gavrilo′s memoir, as this statement is also supported by this book (it is not a church publication, incidentally, and is indeed quite critical of the clergy and Serbs generally). Also pay attention that the book says that the Synod session was in progress on 27 March, as it had been convened in connection to Yugoslavia′s accession to the Berlin Pact (perhaps a notable fact to mention): ″Otvarajući vanredno zasedanje Sabora sazvano zbog pristupanja Kraljevine Jugoslavije Trojnom paktu, patrijarh Gavrilo je rekao: "Neka je slava Bogu, zahvaljujući tome da je prošle noći izvršen puč i situacija je mnogo jasnija. Naš položaj je mnogo lakši. Sinoć mi je jedan od kraljevskih namesnika rekao da ćemo mi biti krivi ako narod bude ustao i nastali nemiri, i da će posledica toga biti ulazak Nemaca u našu zemlju. Noćašnji akt spasao je čast našeg naroda i države, pa zbog toga i mi možemo samo blagosloviti ovo delo."....Axxxion (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it needs to be to the electronic version, to assist in verification. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Stanković vs. StajićEdit

The article isn't saying that Stanković was the commander of the royal guard at the time of the coup, just that at one point (while he was commander) he was offered the lead role in a post-coup government. Given some sort of coup was being planned from 1938 onwards, there is no reason why Stanković wasn't the man that was offered the role, given that he wasn't replaced until late 1940. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Yugoslav coup d'état" page.