Talk:Leftist errors

Title etc

The title and the way it is deployed as a phrase throughout the page don't quite make sense. It is not the way these acts and events were described at the time nor the name they are generally known by now, but a self-flagellating description applied to them later by the communists themselves (more precisely, apparently, "the period of leftist errors"). The phrase "leftist errors/deviation" is simply a generic and fairly common intra-communist trope of criticism, and one more commonly found in other contexts, eg re China. It shouldn't be the actual title here – it's not the primary topic, the standard common name or a clear and explanatory descriptive title. Nor does it make sense to say things like "the leftist deviation policy was pursued ..". We have enough problems with odd titles in this area being treated as if they were widespread and/or formal usage and perhaps this one could be sorted out before it gets set in stone as the others seem to have been? N-HH (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This policy is referred to as the policy of leftist deviation or leftist errors. I agree that the title is Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia-oid so the any idea for renaming is welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it was a series of events and actions described by the communists, retrospectively, as representing leftist deviation or errors. That might seem semantics but there is a difference. It's not the name of a "policy" as such and arguably not even a discrete topic at all. I'm not actually sure how best to neutrally describe it. N-HH (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought "Period of Leftist Errors (Yugoslavia)" would cover it? The topic is surely temporal rather than anything else, as variously described, pretty much between 1941 and 1942, during which the KPJ and its sub-branches did this stuff. We would need to pre-emptively disambiguate it to Yugoslavia to differentiate from other leftist errors which occurred all over the place at various times. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that could work in the absence of anything else – it at least provides more detail. However, the text would need to define the term from the outset as one deployed as a retrospective critique in communist discourse, and the main narrative would have to avoid talking about the "policy of leftist deviation" or "leftist errors" etc as if that were the formal name of a precise, defined policy or even the broad description usually applied to a range of policies. N-HH (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I object to the proposed name. This article is not about period. Its about communist terror. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be renamed so it isn't a communist self-criticism trope, and actually means something. "Communist terror in Montenegro (1941-42)"? I have no idea. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let's not have another meaningless "not about a period" discussion or one where someone tries to veto any suggested improvement to an acknowledged problematic title. We have specific reference to the use of the term "Period of leftist errors", which is explicitly defined as the period in 1941-42 where the partisans not only engaged in acts of terror against peasants they perceived as being Chetnik sympathisers but tried to implement radical land reforms, which the party then disavowed as an error. N-HH (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

one second thoughts, given there were "errors" elsewhere, my first suggestion is probably better than a Montenegro-specific one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would article be renamed to period if it is not about period, but about communist terror policy or campaign? I think that it is better to follow the sources. Red Terror in Yugoslavia is better idea which corresponds with what Lampe explicitly says. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry! but there is something else going on here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly? Well, anyway, as we keep having to tell another user, events take place in periods. And Lampe actually says – unsurprisingly given the propagandistic nature of the term – that Red Terror is what it is called by "others"; ie it's no more a universal name than the communist description is. Both are problematic and as I've suggested I'm not sure we even have a significant discrete topic here. N-HH (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Then it is better Communist terror in Yugoslavia or Leftist Errors (Yugoslavia)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have got the point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. Will you please be so kind to explain me what is the advantage of Period of Leftist Errors (Yugoslavia) in comparison to Leftist Errors (Yugoslavia)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

N-HH's point was that it wasn't clear we have a significant discrete topic here, AND events happen in periods. You have defined a period in the infobox. Why would you be against "Period of", which as N-HH points out is the actual name used by the communists to refer to this topic? The logic escapes me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for "Period of", otherwise most articles would start with "Period of", i.e. Period of Second World War,...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is an academic source which says it was the name of the strategy used by the communists. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to pre-emptively disambiguate by country given the commonality of "leftist errors" in communist critiques world-wide. However, it is clear that at least one respected non-local and English language academic source (linked directly above) says the "Period of Leftist Errors" ended in spring 1942. But this article unequivocally says it extended into 1944, which is an extraordinary claim and I think some discussion of the "period" in which these "errors" occurred is appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just some quick comments regarding the title:

• As duly noted by N-HH, "leftist errors" is indeed a rather generic term. Note sh:Leva skretanja covers exactly this general meaning of the term.
• Peacemaker just moved the article to "Leftist errors (Yugoslavia)" which is the solution I had in mind too, and might even be the best one.
• I'd slightly prefer "Leftist deviations" to "Leftist errors", though - the euphemistic flavor is better preserved, although one might find POV problems with this title, even if it is indeed widely used by historians.
• Leftist errors or deviations, doesn't matter - the article should spell out the origin of this term (CPY, adopted by historians) exactly for the above mentioned reason (putting POV of the term in its proper context).
• Other titles don't work IMO; I could elaborate. "Period of..." does not help either.
• The article should really at least mention the original S-C terms, l(ij)eva skretanja or l(ij)eve greške, especially given the fact that the bulk of the literature is in S-C.

I'll be back with more comments about the article once I take a closer look. GregorB (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Other problems - sources etc

Well, I can't see how the above issues about the title are going to be resolved, but there's also the problem that the whole page is really badly written and relies primarily on foreign-language sources (Serbo-Croatian, I assume). That's not outlawed but it makes verifying and/or improving sentences in the lead such as "This policy was led by the people who believed that communist revolution has to destroy everybody who refused to join communists" nearly impossible. N-HH (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

and related issues around who wrote them (for example, Montenegrins and Serbs writing about Montenegro has the potential to be problematic in terms of a "spiritual" connection to place unless they are internationally respected academics), when (Tito-era stuff is just, well, questionable at best) and what the bonafides of the publishing houses are (and hard to verify for English speakers). This is a common problem with "local" sources, I try to avoid them unless necessary detail is unavailable elsewhere, and even then very carefully, preferably with help from a native speaker. English is apparently not the primary editor's first language, which can also make communication about what the issue is difficult to say the least. All in all, makes it tough to improve and verify. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Many notable people and events did not receive significant attention of English language sources. Although English sources are preferred, in such cases it is completely allowed to use non-English sources. Per WP:NONENG "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Not to remove them. Here is a quote: "Lijeva skretanja su vodili ljudi koji su smatrali da revolucija mora da uništi svakoga ko je odbio da ide s nama.[Leaders of leftist errors were people who believed that revolution has to destroy everybody who refused to join the communists.]"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I know the policy Ad. Even your quote above isn't translated in a way that makes sense grammatically. The tenses are mixed, and it is either terribly written or the meanings of some words aren't quite right. Now multiply that disconnect by the amount of non-English source material and you will hopefully see why there is a problem. Non-SC speakers cannot read it as it is originally, cannot verify it, and your translation/grammar doesn't apparently cut it. It essentially means en WP we will have an article that no-one can improve but you and a few select people who are fluent in English and SC and have access to the sources you have access to. If you can't see how that is problematic on en WP, I can't imagine how anyone will ever convince you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed – no one has claimed foreign-language sources are barred, just that over-reliance on them creates problems. And it does. As for English-language sources, it is misleading to suggest there are not that many; there are plenty on this broader area, for example, the Morrison book that you are now suggesting helps back up the statement in the lead about the central committee ordering mass executions. In fact, that book, on p57, says quite the opposite: that the committee "instruct[ed] Partisans to halt their arbitrary and unjustified killings" (and nowhere that I can see does it say they previously thought differently; instead it suggests that this was primarily Montenegrin partisans simply "settl[ing] scores"). It also suggests that Djilas, rather than being a proponent of such tactics as suggested elsewhere on this page, was aware of their counter-productive nature. If we can't trust the treatment of English-language sources, how can we trust the treatment of Serbo-Croat sources? Sorry, but the page is a mess. Reading down it reveals badly written text and sweeping judgments – eg "meaningful sense", "difficult situation" etc – masquerading as the neutral presentation of facts. N-HH (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I first searched for English language sources and concluded there are not that many of them dealing with this subject. That is why I used non English sources. I don't think I was wrong. In his English language work Banac recommends two sources for an analysis of leftist errors, both written on SC language in Tito's era.
• Regarding Morrison's suggestion that the committee "instruct[ed] Partisans to halt their arbitrary and unjustified killings", this issue is explained in the section about major exponents. Banac there explains that CPY officialy condemned this policy, ignoring the fact that this policy was formulated by its Central Committee, and mildly punishing only several low-level officers.
• Yes, there are sources that claim that Djilas had nothing to do with this policy. I planned to add this information to this article.
• Re badly written text, this article has been created only a couple of days ago. It was created from zero and I plan to continue to work on its improvement and then to get it copyedited. Feel free to help.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure how you'll get it copy edited when the copy editor would need to be able to read SC, have access to the texts, and then ensure the meaning has been properly and accurately translated. Good luck with finding someone with those attributes. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some remarks

Here are some of my remarks:

• I've done a very light copyedit. As I mentioned already, copyediting is not my forte apart from applying minor tweaks.
• The intro should perhaps be a little clearer in explaining what exactly "leftist errors" were. Considering all acts of terror committed by the Yugoslav Partisans, leftist errors stand out for being purely ideologically motivated. The kulaks were not called the "fifth column" because they actually collaborated with the Axis powers, but simply because, being rich, they were seen as natural enemies with whom coexistence is not possible, nor expected, especially during wartime.
• The relevance of the "Propaganda" section is not clear. The slogans seem generic and largely unrelated to the communist ideology.
• "Leftist errors" as late as 1944 do seem odd. Apparently this has been removed from the article (which is just as well). GregorB (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for light copyediting.
  • I agree that it would be good to explain more about the ideological motives of LE. That is certainly an improvement opportunity for this article.
  • At first sight the slogans presented in the propaganda section look generic and unrelated to the ideology. But a closer look reveals different story, directly related to communist ideology:
    1. What is the aim of the communist struggle? The freedom of people.
    2. Against whom they are fighting? Against fascism, "King and Englishmen".
    3. Who is their ally? Red army.
  • Chronology of the leftist errors as late as 1944 was added at the beginning of the writing of this article, based on only one source. Further research of the sources revealed different timeline. That is why I removed it, after one editor noticed this. Thanks you very much. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point about the slogans was that they are not related to the ideological aspects of this particular topic: it is unclear what connects these slogans and the terror against class enemies. GregorB (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A point well made. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are links (link and link 2) to Banac's work that extensively describes this songs in connection with mass murders of kulaks, creations of soviets and kolhozes, desecration of churches.... There is another source used in the article that directly says "leftist deviations were expressed trough the songs like..." ( Лева скретања изражавају се кроз песму: „Партизани, спремите митраљезе да чекамо краља и Енглезе", или ...). I don't insist on this songs, though I believe that Yugoslav monarch and Englishmen have indeed been perceived by communist forces as class enemies. If you GregorB still believe it is unrelated I will remove it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it is the Yugoslav King, not the British one? What tells you that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The full quote:

• Лева скретања изражавају се кроз песму: „Партизани, спремите митраљезе да чекамо краља и Енглезе", или „Краљу Петре, пета си колона, чекамо те пушком из Лондона" - translation: "Leftist errors were expressed trough poetry: "Partisans, prepare machine guns, to greet the king and Englishmen" or "King Petar you are fifth column, we will greet you with rifle if you come from London". -Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, "kralj i Englezi" apparently have little or nothing to do with the kulaks. "Death to fascism, freedom to the people" is as generic as it gets, and was used even in the early post-war years, which would have been unlikely had it been associated with the leftist errors. Not sure why or how Banac makes the connection.

BTW, ref #7 (Banac 1988) is used six times, always with the same quote. Do you have the quote for the "Propaganda" section? GregorB (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference is corrected. Here is GB page of Banac's work. I think it is obvious that Banac directly connect kulaks, fifth columnists, soviets, kolhozes... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Central direction

With this edit (diff) User:N-HH removed referenced assertion about this policy being formulated by the Central Committee of CPY. This removal was justified with the following comment in the edit line: "removing some apparent commentary and unverified assertion about extent of central direction ".

There are many sources presented in the article that the policy of "leftist errors" was formulated and pursued under central direction of Politburo (CK of CPY).

It is true that Politburo condemned this policy at the end of 1941, but that does not mean that it had nothing to do with it, as per explanation of Banac quoted above. Here is what Banac says about central direction of the Politburo:

• Banac, Ivo (1988). With Stalin Against Tito: Cominformist Splits in Yugoslav Communism. Cornell University Press. p. 81. ISBN 0-8014-2186-1. The leftist line of the KPJ Politburo, which is nowadays generally referred to as the period of Left Errors, lasted until the spring 1942

Unless nobody presents reliable sources that Yugoslav Politburo had nothing to do with this policy the removed assertion should be returned to the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have an open mind about this. The problem was, as explained above, that one source attached to the claim in the lead that the party centre ordered and directed mass killings etc in fact said precisely the opposite – that these were unauthorised revenge killings by local units. That's why I removed it outright from the lead rather than tagging it or anything. I'm sure there may be authors, such as Banac above, who suggest that there was more central direction, since there is never unanimity in the reporting or interpretation of these things (something many WP editors forget – or choose conveniently to forget – when cherry-picking sources for page content). But the page also needs to be careful to distinguish between and unbundle slightly the different aspects of what we are talking about here; for example, the record may suggest that the party called for and encouraged land confiscations and local collectivisation of agriculture or whatever, but not mass executions. N-HH (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed reply. Soviet administrative model (which includes land confiscations and local collectivisation of agriculture) is only one aspect of the CPY's leftism. Its basic part is seizing the power from non-communists. By force, trough an armed insurgency. As the second phase of Marxist doctrine. According to the sources, the violence was incorporated in the strategy of CPY and in the core of their ideology (at least the way they interpreted it). Moscow had different position and instructed CPY not to carry on with second phase, but to focus on struggle against Axis forces. CPY did not follow Moscow's instructions and made terrible mistake because their leftist "errors" policy turned population of "liberated territories" against them.
• It is, of course, necessary to be careful with interpretation of sources but I don't think there is a particular need to get too intense here. Accusations such as "cherry-picking sources" to write text "masquerading as the neutral presentation of facts"... are not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without unnecessary personalization.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Date of Leftist errors/deviation etc per Tomasevich

The requested quote is from p. 257 of Tomasevich 1975 (towards the bottom of the page). "At the same time, the Partisans did not hesitate to use terrorist methods against the Chetniks, labelling them collaborators with the enemy, and in the period of "left deviation" from about December 1941 to May 1942, especially in Montenegro and Herzegovina, used terror even against people who, though not collaborators, were because of their class standing looked upon as potential enemies in a later period of revolutionary development." I am re-instating the edit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Tomasevich explains that Partisans used "terrorist methods against the Chetniks" and even agaist the people from about December 1941 to May 1942, in the period of "left deviation". He does not say that Leftist errors began in December. Multiple reliable sources and actual events explain that Leftist errors began before December 1941. Please remove the tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what he says. He says (paraphrasing) that "the period of "left deviation" was from about December 1941 to May 1942". Don't believe me? Don't like it? Don't understand English? RfC it, that will be the only way I'll be removing the dubious tag. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any particular reason that every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh?
• Let me explain you with an example:
  • Pavle Đurišić (Serbian Cyrillic: Павле Ђуришић, pronounced [pâːvle d͡ʑǔriʃit͡ɕ]; 9 July 1909 – 21 April 1945) was a Montenegrin Serb professional officer of the Royal Yugoslav Army who became a Chetnik commander (vojvoda) leading a significant proportion of the Chetniks of Montenegro during World War II.
• Does this mean that World War II began in 1941, when Đurišić became a Chetnik commander of a significant proportion of the Chetniks of Montenegro? Of course not.
• Does this mean that in 1939 Đurišić became a Chetnik commander of a significant proportion of the Chetniks of Montenegro? Of course not.
• Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, chief. You don't understand English. That's unfortunate for you, given you want to edit on en WP and you've been indefinitely banned from Serbian WP, but it's true. From now on, if you don't like what I edit, RfC it. I'm sick of trying to explain basic English comprehension to you. Then we'll see what the community thinks about your "interpretations". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Another unnecessarily harsh comment. I will proceed with DR process within reasonable period of time. All the best.

In the meantime, will you please be so kind to present the sentence that precedes the sentence you quoted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to find 1975 work of Tomasevich. I only found Serbian language translation which has a comma besides "left deviations" (, a u razdoblju »lijeve devijacije«, otprilike od decembra 1941. do maja 1942, bilo je u nekim krajevima pojava da se teror primjenjivao). Will you please be so kind to double check if there is a comma (,) after "left deviations", in Tomasevich's text? Here is what he says in his later work published in 2001:

• Tomasevich, Jozo (October 2002). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945. Stanford University Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-8047-7924-1. But the Partisans also made many political and military mistakes before and during the Italian offensive. The policy of "leftist deviation" — the use of terror against alleged and actual collaborators and those who, because of their social class,....

Don't you agree now that, besides multiple other reliable sources, Tomasevich also supports assertion that the policy of "leftist deviation" was pursued before December 1941 (before and during the Italian offensive)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Don't you agree now"? The snarky leading questions continue. You can't help yourself can you? No, that's not what it says in the English version. It sits open on my desk as I type. In the English version there are commas after; time, Chetniks, enemy, 1942, Herzegovina, who and collaborators. Please, please go ahead with the DR. Please. I'm sick of your lack of English comprehension. I will only respond further on this issue if you submit a DR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if "Don't you agree now"? looked snarky to you.

I did not ask if there is a comma after time, Chetniks, enemy, 1942, Herzegovina, who and collaborators. I asked if there is a comma after term "left deviations". Please be so kind to clarify this and enable me to go ahead with DR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No. There is no comma there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since later work (of 2001) of Tomasevich confirms that that Partisans made errors "before and during the Italian offensive" will you remove the dubous tag?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I found additional much more contemporary source (than JT) authored by Jože Pirjevec who explains that after initial sucess of uprising and capture most of Montenegro by insurgents Milovan Đilas was intoxicated with success also began to attack not only the foreign foes, but also the local "class enemies", thus fatally weakening the uprising. The Italians reacted by laying waste to the countryside, with the help of Albanian and Muslim troops, and by mid-August had already reagained control. Even worse for the communists was that the Montenegrins, frightened by the red terror (later euphemistally called "leftist errors") turned their backs on them and began joining Chetniks. Convinced that in the second phase of the revolution, the "kulaks" (....) and their own sons would betray them, Đilas and his comrades began shooting them, publishing bulliten with the names of those killed with addendum:"it continues". Because of these excesses, on 22 October Tito decided to recall Đilas from Montenegro. Pirjevec, Jože (22 May 2018). Tito and His Comrades. University of Wisconsin Pres. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-299-31770-6. Retrieved 6 January 2019.. Based on this, will you please be so kind Peacemaker67 to remove dubious tag, or you still insist on RfC process before you clean the mess you made? RfC it, that will be the only way I'll be removing the dubious tag.?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No. That quote does not say when the terror began. And it certainly does not say that the terror began in July, as the infobox currently states, which is the reason for the dubious tag. Pirjevec says that Tito recalled Djilas on 22 October, but this passage does not say when the terror began. And it is not a more "contemporary" source, it is a more recent one. If it was a more contemporary source it would be close to the event, not further away from it. And in any case, when we have conflicting reliable sources, we compare and contrast them, we don't cherry pick the one we like and only use that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I will initiate RfC when I have time for that. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Very well. But what on earth would such an RfC say? You haven't produced a source that says the errors started in July. That is what is in dispute. If you believe you have a source for that, point it out to me. If you don't, don't waste your time with an RfC because it will be pointless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You started this section and named it "Date of Leftist errors/deviation etc per Tomasevich" insisting that period of "left deviation" from about December 1941 emphasizing that "the period of "left deviation" was from about December 1941 to May 1942". Don't believe me? Don't like it? Don't understand English? RfC it. AFter I presented multiple sources that clearly place the beggining of leftist errors before December you wrote yesterday when we have conflicting reliable sources, we compare and contrast them,. Will you please be so kind to clarify if you changed your mind since yesterday, after I annonced that I will initiate RfC, and gave up your position on insisting to add to the article that period of "left deviation" from about December 1941 based on your interpretation of earlier work of Tomasevic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that, it says July, and I was saying what Tomasevich says about it. The article says July, and you haven't provided a source for July. That's why there is a dubious tag on it. We have a source that says December, and another source that says Djilas was recalled in October because of it, but no source for July being the start. So where's the source for July? You are the one insisting that it started in July, not me, so the onus is on you to produce a source for it, or change the claimed start date to one that is actually in a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not what I asked you Peacemaker67. Do you still insist to add info about December 1941 as starting date of the period of "left deviation" based on your interpretation of earlier work of Tomasevic?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not, if Djilas was recalled in October, it must have started before December, but I haven't yet seen a reliable source for exactly when it began. Do you have one? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for admitting that you were wrong when you insisted on the December Date of Leftist errors/deviation etc per Tomasevich. It was not at all obvious until your last comment.
• Now, let me explain to you that you were also wrong when you insisted on addition of dubious tag after July beginning of period of LE. Per Template:Dubious, this tag is used after a specific statement or alleged fact that is sourced but that nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. Having in mind that Djilas was recalled in October 1941, period of LE could start in July, August or September. So there is nothing unlikely or dubious about July eventually being the beginning of LE. I think the sources I presented clearly point or imply July. Ie work of Pirjavec with quote which explains what happened after first couple of days of initial success of the uprising in Montenegro which started on 13 July 1941:
  1. intoxicated with success also began to attack not only the foreign foes, but also the local "class enemies",
  2. thus fatally weakening the uprising.
  3. The Italians reacted by laying waste to the countryside, with the help of Albanian and Muslim troops,
  4. and by mid-August had already reagained control.

This quote explain that the beginning of the period of LE (struggle against class enemies) was in period between mid-July and mid-August, with end of July being clearly the only feasible solution. I hope that you Peacemaker67 now understand that you were also wrong when you insisted on the dubious tag after July beginning because I proved that July as beginning of period of LE is not at all "dubious or unlikely"? Will you please remove it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research. You need a source for July (or August or September). When you produce one, I'll remove it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Shepherd (#2) says "The Communist leadership in Montenegro, including one of Tito's closest associates, Milovan Djilas, tried immediately to implement full-scale revolution and the accompanying Red Terror against suspected "kulaks" and other class enemies." "Immediately", ie when the uprising began in July. - diff - Shepherd, Ben H. (2013). European Resistance in the Second World War. Havertown, Pennsylvania: Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-4738-3162-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I produced the source in the end, Antid. You couldn't even manage that yourself. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leftist errors (Yugoslavia). 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/20140324171957/http://veselinpavlicevic.me/data/Lijeve%20gre%C5%A1ke%20Milovana%20%C4%90ilasa.pdf to http://veselinpavlicevic.me/data/Lijeve%20gre%C5%A1ke%20Milovana%20%C4%90ilasa.pdf

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) 00:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Leftist errors" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leftist errors. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Dog cemetery" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dog cemetery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Dog cemetery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)