Jump to content

Talk:Milan Nedić/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The article is a total whitewash of the collaborationist politician and his state

It should be written anew. --HanzoHattori 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of information that looked very dishonest. Some previous editors have been portraying this collaborationist leader as a hero, who not only saved Serbs Nedic but Jews, even though his state allowed anti-Semitic material to be produced. I do agree that he most likely was trying to save Serbs, but at the same time sat by and allowed both partisans and Chetnik fighters be massacred by Nazi Germany and Ustashe Croatia. Also he WAS NOT considered a hero by the major Chetnik leader, Draža Mihailović, who looked down on him. Also, while Tito's partisans' actions did cause reprisals by Germans against Serbs, Tito did not tell his people a half truths like Nedic claiming that unity with the Germans would save Serbs, but rather he organized those people who had lost family and friends to the German occupation, who knew that liberation WAS the only way to save Serbs and Yugoslavia itself from Hitler, who had long emphasized his hatred of all slavic people, especially Czechs, Poles, Russians, and Serbs. So the previous argument on this page about Nedic being a "hero" of some sort for Serbs, is definately far-fetched. More realistically, Nedic cared more about rescuing Serbs than Jews, meaning that Jews could be sacrificed if that meant that Serbs could avoid bloodshed. To him, he probably thought that creating a Serb army which showed dedication to anti-Semitism and anti-Communism, could help sway Hitler to stop the mass murder of Serbs in Ustashe Croatia, if a fascist Serb state was doing a good job purging Jews and especially communist partisans. Nedic certainly underestimated the reaction by Serbs and the Yugoslav communist partisans and royalist Chetniks to the German occupation. User:R-41
In addition, the article previously claimed that he fled to Austria in 1944 (then part of Germany) in "hope" that the Soviet Union would arrive there. In 1944, the Eastern Front's battle lines were still far away from Austria, and it does not make sense why a man who allowed the murder of communist partisans would be "hoping" for liberation from the Russians in Austria of all places. Nedic if found by the Russians, would have almost certainly been executed him for his allowance of communists' deaths. More likely he was allowed to flee to Nazi Germany by the German government itself, like other Nazi allies (i.e Benito Mussolini of Italy in 1945 and Rashid Ali of Iraq in 1941). Nedic probably expected protection by the Germans in Austria from those partisans and Serb Chetniks who wanted to kill him at home for his collaboration. User:R-41 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:03:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
He was not anti-semetic. Those stamps are anti-masonic. I have 3 of those stamps actually.

- The order of 50 people for one wounded German soldier came on 16th of September by Willhelm Keitel. How could Nedic knew in advance (1st of September) about this order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.128.31 (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article may need to be rewritten because unsourced conjecture, typographical errors, confusing lines. --Asteriontalk 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article has little information on the man at all User:R-41
Agree here as well. This page does not really explain why he chose the path that he did. Of course, there is a fine line between explaining and excusing somebody's actions (which often gets blurred in articles around here), but all this article says is that Nedice chose to work for the Germans in 1941 without really saying why. A major omission to say the least. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Milan Nedic.jpg

Image:Milan Nedic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Judenfrei serbia stamps.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Article have problems

As template in article head also imply, this article is full of questionable sources that are not neutral and proper for this subject. Section legacy have refname Perica 2002 without any proper book about it, and also, there is ref from Nin while it is unclear who said that, to whom? Both unreliable sources. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:Reliable source. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milan Nedić. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Step by step

@OyMosby: Cohen is not RS and that other source is not claiming the same thing, as far as I can see. [2] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cohen is a RS. He is used on several Featured Articles and has been run past the RSN several times. However, this is an extraordinary claim, and needs an extraordinary source, and preferable multiple reliable sources. Until they are provided, it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. I would accept it in the body with attribution to Cohen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I provided two sources not just Cohen. The other source see pages 31 and 32. It is clear that Milan Nedić played an important role in the extermination of the Jewish people. Please look at my diff. As for Cohen’s book, both Professor Brendan Simms, Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and Professor Charles W. Ingrao of Purdue University's History Department in Nationalities Papers validated his book. As well as other professors, about his writings about Nedic’s regime. So seems RS to me on multiple fronts. OyMosby (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the extraordinary nature of the claim, I would want another reliable source in addition to Israeli for it to be in the lead. In the interim, suggest adding it to the body using Cohen and Israeli. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
So what if he is used sometimes? The advice on RSN was that he should always be mentioned as "according to Cohen" etc. The other source did not match the text. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
G'day OyMosby, can you provide a quote from Israeli supporting this edit here please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
From Israeli "The Milan Nedic government ...., quickly became an instrument of brutal oppression" and "Though the Germans too the leading and guiding role toward the final solution in Serbia..... they were actively aided in that role by Serbian collaborators". However I can see how this may not be strong enough to finger point Nedic completely. He definitely played a role in the Holocaust. More sources will be needed. OyMosby (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Fictional information

On 1 September 1941 Nedić made a speech on Radio Belgrade in which he declared the intent of his administration to "save the core of the Serbian people" occupied and surrounded by Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Independent State of Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims by accepting the occupation of Germany in the area of Sumadija, Drina Valley, Pomoravlje and Banat. This information does not have confirmation in RS. I searched for information on his 1941 speech but I do not find this quote: "occupied and surrounded by Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Independent State of Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims". Speaking against German allies and Germany at the time when he and Serbia become a German ally not makes sense. I suggest deleting this fictional information from the article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The beginning of that quote is in this B92 article [3], and it appears in Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two, but the rest (from "occupied and surrounded") I can't source in any of my books. The source link isn't useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no source because he didn't say it. You read this article and you should noticed this fictional information. This failure should not have happened to quality editor :). I for the first time read this article and immediately notice an error. Milan Nedić become a German ally and speak against the Germans? It doesn't make any sense. Mikola22 (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense if you know your history. What seems to be the problem here? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Where is RS with Nedić 1941 speech on Radio Belgrade in which he mentions "Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Independent State of Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims"?Mikola22 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
No-one has produced a RS for it, that part of the sentence should just be deleted for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Fictional information 2

He also spoke against organizing resistance to the occupying forces, because there was a German rule that 50 Serbs were to be murdered for each wounded German soldier and 100 for each killed soldier. In addition, at least 300,000 Serbs were forcefully taken to German camps. His state's propaganda was funded by Germany and promoted anti-Semitism and anti-communism, particularly linking these up with anti-masonry. Kragujevac massacre article I quote: "On 16 September, Hitler issued Directive No. 312 to Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Wilhelm List, the Wehrmacht commander in Southeast Europe, ordering him to suppress all resistance in that part of the continent. That same day, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht; OKW) issued Hitler's order on the suppression of "Communist Armed Resistance Movements in the Occupied Areas", signed by Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel. This decree specified that all attacks against the Germans on the Eastern Front were to be "regarded as being of communist origin", and that 100 hostages were to be shot for every German soldier killed and 50 were to be shot for every German soldier wounded"[1] This command was given "On 16 September and alleged Nedić words I quote: "there was a German rule that 50 Serbs were to be murdered for each wounded German soldier and 100 for each killed soldier." was on 1 September 1941.@Peacemaker67: Therefore Nedić could not say this before Hitler's order. Neither current RS or some other RS talk about cited Nedić words. This is about "editorialising commentary, not part of his speech". The same goes and for the second part of the quote "In addition, at least 300,000 Serbs were forcefully taken to German camps." Mikola22 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

Fictional information 3

The German occupiers held no respect for his authority or Serbs, and during the war over 300,000[verification needed] people died in Serbia of war-related causes in German reprisals, which as described above demanded 100 killed Serbs for each killed German soldier, as in the Kragujevac massacre. Source: "Byford, Jovan (2011). "Willing Bystanders: Dimitrije Ljotić, "Shield Collaboration" and the Destruction of Serbia's Jews". In Haynes, Rebecca; Rady, Martyn (eds.). In the Shadow of Hitler: Personalities of the Right in Central and Eastern Europe. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84511-697-2. (page 303)".

  • Can anyone check this out, about 300,000 dead in Serbia(and during the war over 300,000 people died in Serbia of war-related causes in German reprisals)? Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition, at least 300,000 Serbs were deported or held in prisons and concentration camps

@Peacemaker67: This is about Serbia, would you please quote this information, I'm looking for it in the book(Serbia under the Swastika: A World War II Occupation) page 53 or 180, but there is no such information. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I see information.Mikola22 (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop?

@Peacemaker67: I am sorry? How is a minor party of minimal importance relevant? What is next, some hobo's opinion? The source is not the problem, relevance sure is, and I am not sure what you are implying that I am doing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

There was a move to rehabilitate Nedić, and if it is important enough for Ramet and Lazić to mention it in a long-form examination of Nedić's regime (given it took place in a general push to rehabilitate WWII collaborators in Serbia), it is highly relevant to Nedić's biography. Do not remove reliably sourced material from articles using weak excuses like UNDUE and POV. This is attempted whitewashing, and I will not hesitate to report this sort of behaviour at ANI or ask for AE action. I'm sick to death of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop with the interpretations and insults. You are not familiar with my stance on Nedic and do not make assumptions just like that, you are not entitled to such behaviour, on the contrary you should be setting an example for other editors. Instead what we have here is an outburst of "you, you, you" and general frustration, which is not showing because of me only, but I do feel targeted and singled out.
If you continue with your tone, which is not the first time when it comes to editors who do not agree with you on a minor matter, I will be the one reporting you, as you are forgetting WP:BATTLEGROUND and the most basic rule of communication (ask, do not assume), as well as WP:CIVILITY.
It is information of secondary importance, I stand by that. To be more precise, the material is - Relevance level "Lower". It's not an "excuse", it's a proper policy, which I am attempting to follow. Just because a credible author mentions it, it does not automatically means that is of great relevance, considering that the author is going into details on the subject, as he/she should. Removing information about a minor, irrelevant political party (which is not existing anymore nor did play any important role in the sphere of political life of the country) is NOT whitewashing. Ping me when you are ready to say sorry, for making assumptions and making it personal without any real reason. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sadko, list informations which are disputable at talk page and explain your reason why this informations should not be part of the article. On this way of editing(artificial reasons) you make unnecessary confusion by removing sourced information. Editor Peacemaker67 is not blame for your way of editing. Mikola22 (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I did explain, more then once. Do not ignore that please. It is irrelevant piece of trivia about one irrelevant political party.
Cohen used as a proper historical source, even quoted by another author, is a funny thing, the reasons why are quite obvious and have been explained multiple times. We have other information included the article which can be used (a source much stronger then MD potentially biased controversial historian wannabe Cohen). If Cohen was a Serb with his amount of controversy, a proper witch-hunt would be organized by a number of editors. The other source is his superior in every way and I have left that info. and removed MD/UN worker/author Cohen, which was not a big loss for the article, in my book. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You know Wikipedia options when is some source in question. Constantly suspicion in that source leads to nothing. Not all changes can be properly explained in edit summary, only professionals like me can do that. Try to use talk page more until you learn that part of editing. This way of editing constantly gets you into trouble. Mikola22 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure buddy. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the 100 Serbs mention from the lead and my reversion

I have just reverted POV pushing as any other editor can. This article is not in a good state, especially the lead, fails to mention all sorts of important aspects of his biography, and any additions of uncontested facts such as this which are cited to a highly reliable academic source in the body are welcome. On my talk page, Griboski says it is the "stable" version, but the "stable" version of an inadequate lead is completely meaningless. It isn't a GA, it is Start Class. The removal of this information from the lead is serious POV pushing, because it is an attempt to avoid mentioning the whitewashing of the involvement of Nedić in all sorts of collaborative activities and highlight the strong current of revisionism in Serbian historiography regarding the collaboration of Serbs with the Germans in the occupied territory, by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts no less. Something that anyone that had read widely on the subject would be aware of, and would expect to find in the lead. I can only assume that editors removing such material from the lead are trying to hide aspects of his biography in order to push a pro-Serbian POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing? Wow. Not agreeing with you is often presented as some sort of agenda and editors from some parts the Balkans are forced to simmer down. That's no way to discuss and you know better.
All legal actions attempting to legitimize Nedić (in any way) have been turned to dust by the Serbian courts. That is a fact. No school textbooks currently used write about him affirmatively. That is a fact. I have never heard of a recently published work on Nedić by any notable Serbian historians, who are whitewashing him or anything like that. It seems that you have different information, so, be my guest, and tell me how I got it wrong.
Here are some extra facts: the book was not published by SANU originally, it just happens that majority of the editors were academics. The difference is huge and quite clear. It's the same spin with the Memorandum, it was written by several academics and presented as if it was an official document of the Academy - and that was not the case. Every European academy has strict rules and procedures how documents are officially published. As you can see here SANU is not the publisher. It was neither published on behalf of SANU. The book was not ordered by SANU. The situation is quite clear, as we can see.
It seems to me that you have made up your mind about something, like that SANU is whitewashing Nedić, because the book was edited by academics. And old opinions die hard, ain't that the truth? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I work off what the reliable academic sources say about it, not your uncited claims of "facts" about it. You are one of the most active editors in this area and there is a clear pattern of your edits that downplay controversial Serb/Chetnik-related matters but highlight the actions of others against Serbs. This is an example of that editing behaviour. That is not editing neutrally. It is simple, if you don't like other editors pointing that out and telling you to edit more neutrally, then stop editing the way you are and edit more neutrally. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a problem here, two quality sources talk about it and this is valuable information for this article. Also because of the historical circumstances and the perception of Milan Nedić in Serbian academic community this information belongs to the introductory part. Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Just wow. Massive ad hominem (not the first time), slurs, stonewalling and strong-arming aside, which sources do you have to show that the book was published by SANU or that is the opinion of the Academy? That is the key question which you seem to ignore for whatever reason.
A group of academics which make up max. 10% of the total academy member can't speak for the academy. Present the sources that the academy published the book, that is on your part and then tell me that I am not neutral because I am for removing unsourced and factually incorrect content. The whole premise is that "SANU is whitewashing Nedić" and that is great for the lead (it would be, if it was correct) but strong sources for that are nowhere to be found. The fact is - it was the stance pushed by academic dr Dejan Medaković, who was, according to his own account, saved from Zagreb by Nedić. It is not that complicated to understand, but all the same, he was wrong all the way.
I am not talking about several historians who unsuccessful tried to whitewash general MN, sadly that happened as well, only this one instance which is not based on the available sources.
The article includes The 1993 book The 100 most prominent Serbs published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (that information is repeated twice in the same paragraph) which is not per sources or yes, facts. [4] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
which sources do you have to show that the book was published by SANU or that is the opinion of the Academy? We do not have this information in the introductory part. This is information from introductory part "He was included in The 100 most prominent Serbs list". As for information's which exists in legacy section we have this: "In 1995, the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts published a volume entitled 100 Outstanding Serbs and included Nedić on the list", and this: "The 1993 book The 100 most prominent Serbs published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts included an entry on Nedić...", these are information's from two sources and if here exist some problems you have WP:RSN and WP:FTN, and try to use possibilities which Wikipedia offers to you. A group of academics which make up max. 10% of the total academy member can't speak for the academy. This can be a debate in "The 100 most prominent Serbs" article. If you have sources which say that a large part of academic community opposed that book or that SANU officially opposed that book, feel free to enter this information's to the article for NPOV. Mikola22 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Not the point. The whole idea behind that 1 sentence in the intro. is based on the notion that it's notable as a great example of revisionism in a part of the Serbian historiography. That could be added (in general, like I recently did), but claiming that it's done by SANU as an institution is completely incorrect, considering that book was not published by them or for them. Josip Pečarić's views are not representing the Croatian academy as a whole. That is the main point.
Another misleading thing in the article - it is stated that dr Medaković is a historian. He is not a historian but a historian of art/culture/literature and a poet. That is completely different.
Per WP:BURDEN it is not on me to provide sources. Which two strong sources are you talking about exactly?
I am not saying anything about all the other authors and their little attempts to whitewash him and his sympathies for the occupiers, please focus on on this disputed part, as it is largely misleading.
One more thing, did you even read what you have only recently added? Radio Television of Serbia in 2020 broadcast history lecture for eighth grade students in which was affirmatively spoken about Milan Nedić. The wording is quite interesting. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mikola22: [5] - See this and this and please do not claim "sources claim so" because - they do not and it was simply not published by this particular institution Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1993, for example, the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art published the book One Hundred Greatest Serbs which included an entry on Milan Nedic´. The editor of the book, the historian Dejan Medakovic´, warranted Nedic´’s inclusion on the grounds that he was ‘one of the most tragic figures in Serbian history’ whose collaboration saved ‘a million Serbian lives’ (Byford, Jovan (2011) page 110, Serbia and the Serbs in World War Sabrina P. Ramet, ‎O. Listhaug · 2011)
  • (Sladjana Lazić (2011) "The Re-evaluation of Milan Nedic´ and Draža Mihailovic´ in Serbia" (page 269) Serbia and the Serbs in World War Sabrina P. Ramet, ‎O. Listhaug · 2011) "and in 1995 Nedic´ was included in the volume 100 Outstanding Serbs, published by SANU".
  • "Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti privela je kraju i objavila svoj kapitalni projekat Sto najznamenitijih Srba". ("The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts has completed and announced its capital project One Hundred Most Famous Serbs".) Milivoj Bešlin, (2020) [6]
  • @Sadko: these are information's from the sources. You probably suggesting that we do not respect this information's? Mikola22 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I was expecting that. Just because authors are stating something is not making it true, and we can check the claim easily. Bešlin's work is an opinion piece, written from his ideological perspective. Other author are WP:RS but they are presenting factually incorrect information, which is quite possible in every line of work. It's obviously wrong and it is quite clear that they have mistaken the publisher, for reasons which are unclear. We can't c/p 2 sources claiming something which is simply incorrect. Princip and Š-Jupublik are not owned by SANU. Also, please do not edit articles when logged out. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sadko: Bešlin's work is an opinion piece, written from his ideological perspective His information's are from WP:RS („Serbian Mother Before the Court of Nation: Milan Nedic and Rehabilitation of Collaboration in Postsocialist Serbia“, Limes Plus, br. 2-3/2018, page. 9‒22.) [7] We can't c/p 2 sources claiming something which is simply incorrect. You did not say that in the case of 200,000 Serbs which coming to Slavonia and Croatia, even though you knew that this information was based on forgery, and Serbian academician Sima Ćirković speaks about that in RS.[8]. We must respect the sources. Also provide the first pages of that book for review that we see who participated in the publication of that book. Mikola22 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense and Red herring. It is quite clear who published the book (the main point). Who the editors were is also known. I have provided links for both Google Books and COBISS. Now, you can be so kind to undo yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no chance of me doing that because this information is from RS also suported with two RS. Don't make me work against the rules of Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty. There are other ways to fix this WP:TE. Just for the record, here is a recent edition of the book . People from Begen Komerc were not informed that their company is in fact - a national academy. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sadko Also, please do not edit articles when logged out Also, please do not talk fairy tales when we discuss serious things. Mikola22 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
As shown in the links above, the publisher for the 1993 book The Most 100 Prominent Serbs (100 najznamenitijih Srba) is listed as "Princip", not the SANU. It would be helpful to have more information on this publisher, whether or not it's independent. Sadko, maybe it's a division of the SANU?
Also, it's worth noting that the 1995 book that's mentioned, 100 Outstanding Serbs (translated in SR to 100 izuzetnih Srba) yields no Google matches in English or Serbo-Croatian. The only mention of it is in the Ramet book and given its nearly identical title to the previous, it suggests that this is in fact the same book, just re-published. --Griboski (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
We have this info, (Књига "100 најзнаменитијих Срба" споменик и опомена Калезић, Василије, чланак – саставни део, српски, 1995 ..The book "100 most famous Serbs" monument and a warning Kalezic, Vasilije..article - integral part, Serbian, 1995. [9]
Also we have and this information from Matica hrvatska (za ta prisvajanja popisi Sto najznamenitijih Srba u izdanju SANU, 1993. (1. izdanje)..for these appropriations, lists of the 100 most famous Serbs in the SANU edition, 1993 (1st edition))[10] Mikola22 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
That is an article, not a book, please check, do not just c/p. The statement by MH which aims to right wrongs is irrelevant. Mikola22, this is starting to smell of WP:BLUDGEON. @Griboski: I'll check it out and I'll go to the city library where they have the same book in several languages. It could well be that I am wrong about this one, but there is a little chance of that. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, article from 1995 with title "The book "100 most famous Serbs" monument and a warning". Maybe this is about(1995 source). Mikola22 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I had to call to tell you that there are four editions of the book The 100 most prominent Serbs 1993,2001,2009,2011 [[11]],[[12]], [[13]], [[14]] so you know,Goodbye.93.138.30.160 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Here it is from 1995 [[15]] and others [[16]]93.138.30.160 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milan_Nedić/Archive_1&oldid=1142336766"