Talk:Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists

WP:COMMON NAME: Orjuna is more common search result

27,500 Google search results for: Orjuna -wikipedia 811 Google search results for: "organization of yugoslav nationalists" -wikipedia

Also the movement called itself by short form as Orjuna, so there is no problem at all with using the short-form term.

By WP:COMMONNAME I am moving it to "Orjuna".--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was

organization for keeping of integral Yugoslav state and madeing of integral yugoslav nation, so naturaly it had a problem with all antistate and antinational elements in the country, as ethnic separatists (Serb, croat and Slovene), separatistic movements by the ethnic minorities, and also comunists which openly had antistate policy. That's it. If that was fascism then you should think as people from that historical period, not by opinion from 21th century, cause Fascist movement and ideology as italian product had thesis that parts of Yugoslavia should became integral parts of great Italy...So who were the "fascists" in that story, someone who defend it's own country ? Strange opinion...Also antisemitism was never part of its ideology, cause they were not clerical or proreligious group, they were nationalistic movement, and every single person which were against integral state of Yugoslavia was their's enemy. In this text, there is obviously some melting pott of different ideologies, movements, eticeta's..which is totaly out of question.--Rethymno (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... "Serb separatists"? Can you name even one Serbian organisation that existed in that period and was against Yugoslavia? Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably posibility of some individuals, not organizations. That's truth, Serbs were mostley satisfied with state in which they lived, even noone asked them. Anyway Orjuna wasnt "fascists" and antisemitic group, which is most important and which this text want to present. This text is probably writing from the opinion of procroatian antiyugoslav position and then naturaly that should be absolutely negative presented for the public in modern days Croatia. So, as always text like this had a position of modern times after desolution of Yugoslavia, so its not neutral and it cant explaine position of that time situation in Dalmacia f.e....--Rethymno (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

The common name for this organisation appears to be the acronym: Google books ngram viewer favours the acronym (either all caps or initial cap only) over the full name: [1] Google scholar search for the acronym produced 693 results ([2]) vs 162 results for the full name (114 in US spelling here: [3] and 48 in UK spelling here [4]) overwhelmingly favouring the acronym.

Therefore it appears that the article should be moved accordingly with redirects from the full name(s). Tomobe03 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists → ORJUNAORJUNA – per WP:COMMONNAME (see the talk section immediately above this one) Tomobe03 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. According to MOS:ACROTITLE, if an acronym and a full name are both in common use, then the full name should be used. The sources listed above show that both "ORJUNA" and "Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists" are commonly used, even if the former is slightly more common than the latter. Zacwill (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually MOS:ACROTITLE says something else: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". This subject appears to be not slightly, but four times as frequently referred to by the acronym in professional papers. Tomobe03 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the nominator - Prompted by the above cherrypicked quoting of the MOS, I thought it would be useful ot cite the entire relevant passage at this point:
Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications). In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one (usually the abbreviation) redirecting to the other or being a disambiguation page.
It is evident that the professional and academic publications clearly favour the acronym - by more than 4 to 1. I would also say it is likely that at least some people superficially familiar with the topic would only identify the topic by the acronym than by the full name (for example, through use of the derived derogatory term discussed in the article).--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JNNO article merger

Currently, there is a separate Yugoslav Progressive Nationalist Youth (JNNO) article. ORJUNA was established as the JNNO and a year later the organisation changed its name. The establishment as the JNNO, and the name change are covered in sufficient detail (greater than the separate article) in ORJUNA article. I have proposed merger of the JNNO article into the ORJUNA article, but there is literally no information in the JNNO article that could be added to the target, so in essence the JNNO article should simply become a redirect probably. Tomobe03 (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody seems interested in the discussion for more than a month, I'll boldly merge/redirect the JNNO article per template documentation. --Tomobe03 (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

@Tomobe03: I have a couple of small notes.

  • Can you please define what KPJ stands for? It first appears under Activities > Croatia
  • "ad hoc" does not need to be hyphenated, although I appreciate the thought process (it does look like it should be). It's a Latin term living by its own rules.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions about my edits or writing questions in general. I've copy edited a number of your articles now and I'm interested in the subject! SilkPyjamas (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkPyjamas thank you for taking time and effort to copyedit this article an for the note. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! SilkPyjamas (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I will review the article but I need a couple of weeks to go through the article before providing comments.A.Cython (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review. Fortunately, the two-week wait suits me perfectly, because I'm short of editing time right now -- but I expect to have much more time in about two weeks! Cheers Tomobe03 (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some preliminary comments

First reading impressions. Overall, it is an interesting article and I think it was great potential. However, the prose requires some work to streamline the narrative by making it more clear who is who and the why and whats. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of player groups resulting in a lot of acronyms making it very difficult to follow the narrative. I also think that there are some missed opportunities to add relevant context that could help better understanding the motivations of these groups. It would also help by having more explicit summaries of the activities of the groups. Below, I include a list of specific comments.

  • Add wikilinks at the lead on the following:
  • The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia) was proclaimed by the Prince Regent Alexander on 1 December 1918. When and where. Was it not that Serbia was defeated in WWI? Was this proclamation right after its liberation by also taking territories that belonged to Austro-Hungarian Empire? If so a brief context should be added since this very important event.
    • Will this change be acceptable for you? "Following the conclusion of World War I, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia) was proclaimed by the Prince Regent Alexander on 1 December 1918. The Prince Regent appointed..."? This provides the minimum context for opening the Background section and it will be sufficient for me.
      • Absolutely (T)
  • Maybe I failed to read it carefully, but I feel that you need to explain a little better what "integral Yugoslavism" means. You do not want the reader to go to another page to figure out the basic definition. I am saying this because the first context that I got was proponents of integral Yugoslavism considered advocates of a federal system of government separatists.
    • There is a brief explanation in the second paragraph of the "Origins" section where Yugoslavism is also linked. It is possible to add more detail, but I felt that this brief introduction was sufficient for casual readers and the link would serve those who want more info. (T)
  • You do not need to define (acronymised as ORJUNA) twice, one time is enough.
    • Done (T)
  • If you are not going to use the acronyms JNNO, SLS, and SDS, then remove them. The article already has a lot of acronyms for a reader to keep track, so anything that is not used remove it to help him/her to read your article.
    • Yugoslav Muslim Organization (JMO). This included armed clashes with JMO supporters you could rewrite this in a way to get rid of the JMO acronym as well, since it is only used once.
      • Removed the acronyms used only once (JNNO, SLS, SDS) and rewritten as suggested not to require use of the JMO acronym. (T)
  • Is (akciona sekcija, plural akcione sekcije) used in the article in a meaningful way? If not then remove it. It distracts the reader from the main narrative.
    • Moved to an existing note on the unit (T)
  • The following statements need a citation. I know that you have citations in the following sentences, but given the gravity of the particular statements it advisable to reinforce them with citations.
    • The German-speaking minority was also targeted in Slovenia. The attacks included bombing newspaper offices, assaults on social events organised by the minority, and public protests against the Germans involving ransacking German-owned homes.
      • Do you mean citation or quotation? In this case, the Đorđević, p.195 reference covers the sentence, and I'll repeat it to make it clear it covers the particular sentence. If quotation is needed, I can provide it as well, although I believe it to be unnecessary. The relevant passage goes as follows (transliterated from Cyrilic script): "U Sloveniji je na meti bila nemačka manjina, ali su se dešavali sukobi i sa klerikalcima. Početkom februara izvršen je upad na zabavu pangermanskog Lovačkog društva u Celju. Posle toga, po gradu su priređivane antinemačke demonstracije prilikom kojih je došlo do uličnih sukoba, kada je demolirano više od 200 nemačkih kuća i lokala, dok je u redakciju lista Ciler cajtung bačena bomba. Sredinom februara demolirana je štamparija glasila pučke stranke u Mariboru, a u martu je došlo do sukoba sa klerikalcima u Slovenskoj Bistrici. Na samim izborima orjunaši su sačekivali Nemce i izbacivali ih sa biračkih mesta." (My translation: In Slovenia, German minority was targeted, but there were also clashes with the clericalists (reference to the Slovene People's Party supporters). In early February, they stormed a party organised by the Pan-Germanic Hunting Association in Celje. After that, anto-German protests were organised in the city and some street clashes occurred during the protests, resulting in ransacking of more than 200 German-owned homes and businesses and a bomb was thorwn into the office of the Cillier Zeitung newspaper. In mid-February, the (Slovene) People's Party's newspaper printing shop in Maribor was ransacked and there was a clash with the clericalists in Slovenska Bistrica in March. During the elections, the Orjuna members waited for Germans to arrive to polling stations and then threw them out of the polling stations.)"
        • Citation at the end of the sentence. Quotation also helps in the reference, i.e, with the option "quote = ", but citation would be sufficient. I know that you have citation at the end of the paragraph, but because the nature of these particular sentences is peculiar, it would be stronger if you move the relevant citation.
    • Namely, in the province, ORJUNA targeted Germans, Hungarians, and Hungarian-speaking Jews as foreign elements threatening the state.
      • Cite repeated, a word added to clarify it was how they were portrayed. If a quote is needed, let me know. (T)
  • One of ORJUNA's final large actions took place in May 1928, [...], and additional protests happened in Šibenik, Split, Dubrovnik, Ljubljana, Skopje, Sarajevo, and Zagreb. I think you need to briefly expand this. Did these protests lasted a single day? Did they take place simultaneously? How did they lasted? How extensively was the damage, if any? Given that this was the last major action of the group a better description might help, if of course this can be supported by the sources.
    • Added some information on the clashes, but not information on damage appears to exist. If I find any, I'll make sure to add it. (T)
  • ORJUNA peaked in 1925, and its power gradually declined afterwards. It is not clear what you mean "peaked". You need to be a little more explicit in the summary of how the particular group was influential. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how its power (whatever it was) "gradually declined".
    • Added more information. The article now states that Orjuna was initially consisting of people belonging to Pribićević's faction of the DS, that its role was violent suppression of Pribićević's opponents while he was a government minister, that the government supported Orjuna and that the support and power diminished after Pribićević left the government as government was no longer influenced by Pribićević.
  • In the process, those commentators equated the Yugoslavist ideology and the Greater Serbian political project. Please elaborate as this is a convoluted statement.
    • Rephrased to clarify. I'm afraid that elaborating on how Yugoslavism is related to the Greater Serbian project and how it is distinct from it would serve no purpose here. The point of the paragraph is to report how the term was portrayed/perceived in Croatia in the 1990s. None of the commentators using the derogatory term attempted to provide any analysis as far as I can tell.
  • In some sources, the Action Groups are referred to as the Action Troops. Rewrite by removing the WP:WEASEL word, i.e., some, by being more explicit. It is confusing, is the supported reference actually say that "some sources say..." or this is an example of a source that uses the term "Action Troops"?
    • This is an example of such a source. I have rephrased the sentence accordingly. (T)
  • its main publication since you are not mentioning other publications, then the word "main" is not needed.
    • Removed (T)
  • A split in the leadership occurred in [...] the head of the Split district, accusing... added emphasis. To help the reader, it is better to avoid using words with double meaning. You can say 'A divided leadership...'.
    • Rephrased. Good catch (T)
  • The attempt failed due to a lack of interest. by whom? The public, politicians or anyone else?
    • Public, i.e. insufficient interest in membership. Rephrased. (T)
  • ORJUNA did not target every ethnic minority. The Slovaks were deemed loyal to the state and therefore not attacked. Were there any other such minorities? If yes name them. If not simplify by saying 'ORJUNA did not target Slovaks, because ...'
    • Done as suggested (T)

I need a few more days to go through the figures and the rest of references, but you have some comments to work with. After this I will prepare the evaluation. A.Cython (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The figures look ok. As for references, I must say I do not read Serbian or Croatian, but there are sufficient sources in English to go through the review, which some are not in the article. Given that an important aspect in WP is verifiability, the inclusion of additional English sources is necessary. From my search the following sources could potentially be added (even if it is only for "further reading" section).

  1. Bakić, Dragan; Fundić, Dušan; Lompar, Rastko, eds. (2023). Right-wing Politics in Interwar Southeastern Europe : Between Conservatism and Fascism. Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. ISBN 9788671791236.
  2. Dragosavljević, Vasilije (2015). "Influences of Italian fascism on ideology and political practice of the Organization of Yugoslav Nationalists (ORJUNA)". In Biagini, Antonello; Vučetić, Biljana; Rudić, Srđan (eds.). Serbian-Italian Relations: History and Modern Times. The Institute of History Belgrade. ISBN 9788677431099.
  3. Djuraskovic, S. (2007). The Organisation of the Yugoslav Nationalists-ORJUNA, 1921-1929 (PDF) (Thesis). Central European University.
  4. Dragosavljević, V. (2019). "Irredentist Actions of the Slovenian Organisation of Yugoslav Nationalists (the ORJUNA) in Italy and Austria (1922–1930)". Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino (before 1960: Prispevki za zgodovino delavskega gibanja). 59 (3): 31–52.
Source #1 is already used, it's Dragosavljević's chapter in that book. Source #2 is now included in the article sources and used in the body text to reinforce existing claims and explain one point. Will get to the remaining two shortly. (T)
Source #3 is a Masters Thesis and per WP:THESIS it does not necessarily mean it is a reliable source. Since it is not really necessary, I removed it altogether. Source #4 is now used in the article and moved to sources. (T)

Below I include the status of the review so far.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Overall, it is well written, though there are some issues on easing the reading flow that need to be addressed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    So far from the articles in English and the extra mentioned above, the article is ok. No copyright violations based on Earwig's tool. However, inclusion of more English-based sources for verifiability purposes is needed to complete evaluation.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Focused and covers different aspects
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    It appears that has neutral language.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I will keep it open for the next couple of weeks, starting today. Extension is possible provided improvements are initiated. A.Cython (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to review this nomination. Your comments were helpful and I am convinced that the article is improved as a result. I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised above. Cheers Tomobe03 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I am just doing what I would hope others would do when reviewing articles I have worked on. Back to the review, yes you have addressed my concerns and I think that overall the article has reached the GA status. Thank you for implementing the changes in a constructive and timely fashion. Congratulations! Happy Holidays! A.Cython (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Organization_of_Yugoslav_Nationalists