Talk:Dobroslav Jevđević

Sarajevo Trial
I have here a book which suggests that Jevđević testified at the trial of Gavrilo Princip and company in 1914. Would anyone mind if I mentioned this briefly in the article? 23 editor (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a very old book (see WikiProject Military history/Academy/The effect of aging sources. What exactly does it say? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's almost 100 years old now. It basically mentions how Jevđević testified that Princip had been in contact with officers from Serbia prior to the assassination, but it is stated that he never mentions who the officers were. I didn't think this was the important bit, but I felt that the fact that he testified deserved a mention in the early life section considering that the trial itself was an important historical event and that he was a friend of Princip. 23 editor (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look on Hathi Trust, and given it was written by the A-H government, and documents a trial by judge, I reckon it might be ok just to mention the bare facts as given. 1. that he gave evidence at the trial, 2. that he stated that he knew that Princip had access to the highest circles in Belgrade, but did not specify the name of anyone in those circles. Perhaps also attribute it in-text as well, so it is clear to readers where it came from? It might be best to quote it verbatim rather than paraphrase? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something along the lines of "It was recorded that Jevđević later testified at the trial of Princip and others in Sarajevo." 23 editor (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascist organisation
There is a reference to a "fascist organisation" that opposed King Peter I. What organisation was that exactly? Without a name, I'm not sure this reference can remain, as it appears it is the only basis for categorising the man as a fascist. Not sure it is justified based on the rest of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the fact that "it was opposed to King Peter", I'm guessing it was the Yugoslav Republican Party. The CIA report doesn't go into detail, however. 23 editor (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and thought it was likely that they were referring to ORJUNA. Given it is so general, I think it should be removed, I don't think it adds anything. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The brief mention that the CIA gives it is extremely confusing to say the least. It mentions the movement being opposed to "King Alexander" in 1918, when King Peter was on the throne. In any case, it could not have been ORJUNA, given that it was founded in 1921 and not 1918. 23 editor (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think we could live without it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction
"Although Jevđević attempted to recruit the Muslims while making use of the Bosnian desire for autonomy to support his alliance with the occupying Axis powers, nothing developed from these requests."

Not exactly nothing; Popovac, Musakadić and Pašić formed a Muslim Chetnik militia following their meeting with Jevđević and Baćović in late 1942 and 8 percent of all of Mihailović's Chetniks were Muslims by December 1943. 23 editor (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check the source, but I thought it was referring to the Bosnian desire for autonomy, rather than DJ's success or otherwise in recruiting. Will check. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

BRD?
@Peacemaker67 -- please explain how I am not following BRD. These are our last four transactions on this article:
 * 1) (cur | prev) 03:12, 23 December 2015‎ Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,187 bytes) (-197)‎ . . (NPOV text; rv speculation) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 23:52, 23 December 2015‎ Peacemaker67 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,088 bytes) (+194)‎ . . (→‎Case White: This is from Roberts. Stop selective pulling things out combined with other minor edits) (undo | thank)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 04:07, 24 December 2015‎ Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,894 bytes) (-194)‎ . . (Undid revision 696559209 by Peacemaker67 (talk) --what I removed (selectively) is speculation, regardless of who is speculating) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 04:34, 24 December 2015‎ Peacemaker67 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,088 bytes) (+194)‎ . . (Undid revision 696583822 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) you clearly don't understand BRD, follow it, and don't edit war) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)


 * @Peacemaker67: As far as your complaining about my "selective (sic) pulling things out" -- where is the problem? Am I supposed to blank the page? And what is wrong with "combined with other minor edits"? Don't get it. Quis separabit?  15:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "you clearly don't understand BRD, follow it, and don't edit war" -- clearly I don't as I thought that after making a bold -- not really that bold at all, btw -- edit, a discussion should result. Despite making clear my reasons in two separate edit summaries, you made no attempt to either initiate a discussion -- despite your being the party opposed to my edits -- or to address my concerns. So I do bold, you do revert but there is no discussion. Clearly one of us doesn't understand BRD. Quis separabit?  15:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the BOLD editor who is REVERTED starts the DISCUSSION. That was what was wrong. Roberts gives us his opinion, he is reliable, so his opinion is fine. Your opinion, on the other hand, is not. If you think that statement should be attributed inline, si that, don't delete reliably sourced material. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is speculation nonetheless was my original point. Quis separabit?  04:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't know why Roberts had that opinion. To call it speculation is OR. I'm happy for it to be attributed inline, but if you insist on its removal, start an RfC or some other DR process. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dobroslav Jevđević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122005650/http://prometej.ba/index.php/home-7/811-prof-dr-ivo-goldstein-cetnicki-zlocin-u-rami-u-listopadu-1942-godine-iii-dio to http://www.prometej.ba/index.php/home-7/811-prof-dr-ivo-goldstein-cetnicki-zlocin-u-rami-u-listopadu-1942-godine-iii-dio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dobroslav Jevđević. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054826/http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/22byford.pdf to http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/22byford.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108001307/http://www.prometej.ba/index.php/home-7/785-prof-dr-ivo-goldstein-cetnicki-zlocin-u-rami-u-listopadu-1942-godine-i-dio to http://www.prometej.ba/index.php/home-7/785-prof-dr-ivo-goldstein-cetnicki-zlocin-u-rami-u-listopadu-1942-godine-i-dio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)