[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Black Hand (Serbia)

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


Queen Draga's breast

[edit]

I have seen reports in several sources that when she was hacked to pieces in 1903, Apis sliced off one breast. The mummified circle of flesh was used in initiation ceremonies of the Black Hand; the new member would stick a dagger in it while solemnly intoning " So shall perish all enemies of Serbia", or some such thing. In English, the allegation is made in Dennis Wheatley's 1950 novel "The Second Seal" about the outbreak of war in 1914, but he did not give his own sources. Does anyone know about this? 12.201.7.201 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logo image

[edit]

Can someone replace the current flag image with one that doesn't look like dog shit? Let's take advantage of the full 72 pixels. CranialNerves (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The impact section

[edit]

The impact section is practically one long paragraph, and should probably be either reorganized or rewritten. Or broken into smaller sections. Maybe even a new article. Just a suggestion. Ravewolf (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doneKuk1910 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC) This section now has 4 paragraphs, hope you approve.Kuk1910 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Respectfully request BGWhite to please reinstate edits to article placed by KuK1910, or failing that, submit edits to a neutral third party for review. This article, as it stands, consists of unsubstantiated opinions, lacks a satisfactory number and quality of citations, and is exceptionally biased. As a postscript, I have rewritten the edit of August 31, 2015, with a view to increasing the overall neutrality of the language of the revision. I do not want to tire everyone with another posting to this page, so I will happily email it to the reviewer, post to my talk page, the talk page for this article, or post to the talk page of the third party.Kuk1910 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black hand

[edit]

it really is Chornoya, meaning "black" in russian language. "crna", sounds slightly familiar but i wouldnt know in what language this could refer to. Anyways. I hope that's of some clarification. But the word "Ruka", does indeed mean "hand" in russian. --User:Sofystikated

If this had anything to do with Russia, maybe what you're saying would make some sense? --Shallot 23:04, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree, why do you bring up Russia? The Black Hand was Serbian, Crna Ruka is Serbian for "The Black Hand". --62.78.185.120

Montenegro is crna something. So I'm guessing the language formerly known as Serbo-Croat. Secretlondon

Google gets 0 hits for 'Chornoya Ruka'. Hmmm. Morwen 21:37, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Chornoya Ruka means black hand in Russian... --GorillazFanAdam 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavrillo Princep

[edit]

Gavrillo Princep was not a member of the Black Hand, he was assited by them, they supplied the weapons, but he was not a member.

Incorrect. Gavrilo Princip was indeed an official member of the Black Hand. Mehicdino 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was a member; he was a friend of Chabrinovitch and was brought into the organizaion between 1912 and 1914 by Dimitrijevitch. User:RideABicycle/Signature 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He was not of sufficient age to become a member of the Black Hand. He did not appear on the coded list of members produced at Salonika. In any event, "Unification or Death" was no longer a functioning organization by the time of the assassination; instead its remnants had become little more than an extension of the Chief Of Serbian Military Intelligence's power. See the testimony of the central committee (Salonika): Its president was dead and was not replaced, its secretary was disinterested, its coffers were empty, many links between cells were broken by casualties taken in the war against Bulgaria. He is therefore usually referred to as a member of "Young Bosnia" or "Young Bosnians". This was not an organization, but simply a term used primarily after 1918 to refer to a wide range of organizations, groups and individuals dedicated to the destruction of Austria-Hungary so that a Yugoslavia, a Greater Serbia, or independent slavic states could form. Princip did try to join the Comitaji for the Balkans wars but was rejected by Major Tankosic, himself a member of the Black Hand central committee. There is evidence that the two adult members of the assassination team at Sarajevo were members of the Black Hand, namely Danilo Ilic, and Mohamed Mehmedbasic. Werchovsky 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Bradshaw Fay's The origins of the world war makes clear Dimitrijevitch's inclusion of Princip as a Black Hand member at Vol. II, p. 101. Gavrilo was initially rejected in 1914 when he sought membership. However, two years later he was brought into the organization formally by Dimitrijevitch himself to work on an attempt on the Hapsburg Governor in Sarajevo. As a Bosnian émigré in Belgrade, he was a great choice. Before 1916, he remained in close contact with Chabrinovitch, who was involved with Union or Death for some time. It is often hard to discern details about the pan-Yugoslav organizations of this prewar period; Austria-Hungary never did find that Narodna Odbrana and Union or Death were separate entities. They shared assets and members, and were all affiliated with high government officers (via the ruling Radical Party).
User:RideABicycle/Signature 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with your quoting of Fay. I am sure he wouldn't be saying that Princip joined "Unification or Death" in 1916 while Princip was in an Austro-Hungarian prison dying of consumption; and of course Dimitrievic was in Serbian Officer's Prison in late 1916. Perhaps you better quote Mr. Fay directly to avoid mischaracterizing his work. Perhaps you meant 1912 and 1914? It was Dimitrievic's sworn testimony that although the "Black Hand" oath was occassionally administered in 1914, it was only for the purposes of military intelligence.

Werchovsky 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Austria-Hungary did have intelligence on the Black Hand, the misconception that it did not springs from the fact that this intelligence was not brought to the investigators involved in the Sarajevo assassination. Of course, in reality, the Narodna and the "Black Hand" were not completely seperate. They had overlapping memberships and the "Black Hand" used the Narodna as it saw fit including using its "tunnel" to transport the Belgrade assassins and their weapons to Sarajevo. Please fix your quote of Fay soon.

Werchovsky 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the asinine pedantic nonsense, this takes the cake. Let us leave aside, for a moment, that we have Morton's detailed description of Princip's initiation into the Black Hand on Wednesday night, May 27, 1914. [1] Has Mr. Wechovsky never heard of an agent or an agency relationship? | I refer him to the Dictionary.com definition of Agent - a person who acts on behalf of another person, GROUP, business, government, etc; representative. That is, at the very least, what Princip was, an agent doing the will of the Black Hand, a puppet whose master, Dimitrijevic, pulled his strings. And that brings us back to what is really important, that this crime was planned by high ranking military officials of the Serbian Government. (Read Dimitrijevic and Tankosic)Kuk1910 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was a rogue operation, not approved by the King or his Government. That is what led to the fall and execution of its leader, and the group's suppression in 1917. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite book|author=Frederick Morton|title=Thunder at Twilight|date=1989|publisher=MacMillan Publishing Company|isbn=0-684-19143-1|page=219-221|

A question

[edit]

Does anyone know whether the Black Hand still exists, or if not, when it was destroyed/petered out? That might be useful for inclusion in this article, and to satisfy my own curiosity. --Anakolouthon 21:15, 8 Dec 2004 ( Some people think that still exsist but is not so active like it was

They scattered after Solunski Proces (The Sallonica Trials) during WWI where the leaders were court marshalled (and shot) for the 1903 coup and other crimes. Apis is burried in Zeytinlik military cemetery in Thessaloniki. --User:milosj

The above is false. Black Handers were tried at Salonika on many charges, all false. Ultimately they were convicted only of attempting to Kill Heir Aleksandar. The guilty verdicts were overturned posthumously for the three who were actually shot (Dimitrievic (formerly Chief of Military Intelligence) who had made a written confession to organizing the assassination of Franz Ferdinand through Rade Malobabic, Rade Malobabic who had confessed to a Priest that he had been sent to Sarajevo, and Colonal Vulovic who had confessed to having received orders signed by the Chief of the Serbian General Staff Marshall Putnik to send Rade into Austria-Hungary shortly before the assassination. Those not executed generally were let out of prison early. Serbia held none to account for their real crimes such as the assassination of the King and Queen and Queen's brothers, and 2 cabinet members in 1903, or for the aborted putsch in Macedonia in 1914, or for their roles in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Read "The 'Black Hand' on Trial: Salonika, 1917", or any first rate history book on the origins of WWI such as Albertini or Fay.

Werchovsky 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearance was a show farce, organised by Tito for propaganda reasons. The Black Handers were guilty all right, deliberately setting Europe aflame to get their Greater Serbia. The King did decide there was no need to go into exactly how his dynasty got on the throne, true. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:7C8D:3A11:DACF:8DD6 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia

[edit]

Montenegro is Crne Gore pronounced Tserna Gora, and Crne Ruka is Serbian

Montenegro is Crna Gora, and Black Hand is Crna Ruka. --User:milosj

Secret Society\Mafia

[edit]

Is the original author of the article able to add the secret society and mafia aspects please.

Why mafia? They were a secret society that included mostly high-ranking officers and government officials. --User:milosj
Prior to the ascendancy of the Gambino family in the US' golden era of the mafia, the Italian mafia was referred to by the apellation "The Black Hand" as well. There should be a disambiguation page.Citizenposse 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well.. there should be
The "black hand" was a criminal organization born in Italy (Naples) and spread in the USA. "BLACK HAND - symbol and name for a criminal and terroristic secret society, and especially associated with the Mafia and the Camorra. The Black Hand flourished in Sicily in the late 19th cent., and in the United States it was especially active in New York City at the beginning of the 20th cent. It is estimated that at one time 90% of New York City's Italian population was blackmailed by letters threatening death and marked with a black hand. Famous incidents associated with the Black Hand include the murder (1890) in New Orleans of chief of police Daniel Hennessy and the shooting (1909), in Palermo, Italy, of Lt. Joseph Petrosino of the New York City police.

"The Black Hand “new York" The black hand of NY is said to be a organization that was created to better the communities of new York city originally started in 1997 by a William Clark ask masters the first so called godfather of the hand. Who was mostly known for is brutal ways of dealing with issues in the NY area. the true creation of the black hand was discovered in 1999 after masters was assassinated in a rival cartel situation it was then understood that the black hand was an organized crime family taking over for the family of 475 members and 60 different operation was Jason Anthony young who later mysteriously disappeared along with many members. Since then little or no knowledge of the Black Hand has been found or given. Some say he was a mastermind that often quoted that the best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist. But yet his actions still linger in plain sight. It is said that the Black Hand is now more than a million strong and growing every year undetected unseen unmentioned Ran buy a super genius and master computer hacker. Make no mistake the Black Hand is still alive and kicking today...

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=HvfRNGFTCBP6kCT6XGRygfmt36Q9tKYLpBBFMWDSxvQQFCQ3s9T0!1063769811?a=o&d=112847639 http://www.onewal.com/maf-bib.html Jackblues 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, a criminal organization that uses bloodthirsty violence for their own power, advancement and aggrandizement. Am I describing the Sicilian Black Hand or the Serbian Black Hand. Trick question!!!! It is both. Somebody please tell me what the difference is between the Chicago mobster Al Capone, who "allegedly" beat two men to death with a baseball bat, and the Serb freak show, Dimitrijevic who riddled the bodies of King Alexander and Queen Draga with bullets, literally hacked them to pieces, and then dumped the parts into the street. [1] This is the head of the Serbian Black Hand. Kuk1910 (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly trying to be funny by comparing a selfish brutal beating to a political assassination. You clearly have some personal hateriot towards Black Hand and that being evident you should refrain from editing the article and the related ones, and leave it to editors able to maintain a NPOV on the matter. FkpCascais (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am using humor to point up the contemptible nature of both organizations, and to point out how little difference there was between them. Pity that you missed that point, but your bias got in the way. One must suppose, by your writing, that in your world view, it is perfectly OK to shoot, stab, dismember and defile someone you disagree with politically. I am sure that King Alexander Obrenovic and Queen Draga would have failed to appreciate the distinction that you have made between the two crimes. Which brings us to the main point of my observation, and the question that your biased, non-NPOV exposition has failed to answer. What is the difference in the two sets of murders? Neither Al Capone nor Dragutin Dimitrijevic are God and neither had the right to decide, on their own usurped authority, who lives or who dies.

Both individuals personally and materially profited from their taking of another human being's life, and neither lost any sleep over it. Allow me to quote Dusan Batakovic, of the Institute for Balkan Studies, in Belgrade, Serbia. "The King’s aides-de-camp, chiefs of the General Staff, commandants of military schools and other military institutions, brigade and division commanders, were exclusively recruited from the military personnel loyal to the conspirators regardless of their rank, experience and skills."[2] In short, murder for fun and profit. Captain Dimitrijevic shot up to full Colonel very quickly and was Chief of Military Intelligence, a rank and post he would not have held were it not for his part in the Obrenovics' murder. Capone would view his murders as nothing more than the justifiable enforcing of loyalty to La Cosa Nostra. Dimitrijevic would resort to "patriotism" as a justification, which I am sure you will use on his behalf. In Dimitrijevic's case, to quote Samuel Johnson, patriotism is, indeed, "the last refuge of a scoundrel"Kuk1910 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite book|author=Frederick Morton|title=Thunder at Twilight|date=1989|publisher=MacMillan Publishing Company|isbn=0-684-19143-1|page=191|
  2. ^ Batakovic, Dusan (2013). "317" (Storm over Serbia, The rivalry between civilian and military authorities 1911 -1914). Retrieved 2015-09-01.

You will not see that political motives are different to ordinary greed. They may be worse ( or better) but it is not the same thing. I speak as an opponent of the Black Hand, Serbian.

On Johnson, his saying was not, as is widely believed, about patriotism in general, but what he saw as the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. I disagree with him about Pitt, but he should not be misquoted, as he often is by people who want to show a rag of learning. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:7C8D:3A11:DACF:8DD6 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2020

pop culture references?

[edit]

I'm not sure this is the best place to make a comment about a "blood metal band", if they are in fact worthy of being in wikipedia shouldnt that be better placed in an article about the band? --Michael Lynn 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straying?

[edit]

The impact section, while extensive, is starting to stray from the Black Hand into Serb-Hapsburg conflict before the war. Perhaps we should stick to the organization itself (Sarajevo was not at all the only impact it made on the world ). User:RideABicycle/Signature 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, "Unification or Death!" was formed primarily to fight against IMRO and only secondarily against Austria-Hungary, so Serbian success in the Balkans Wars (partly through ethnic cleansing) is a major contribution of the organization. If you know a lot about it, please write about it not just in the consequences section but in the earlier parts. I am just sticking to what I am an expert on, from 1913 on, where the focus of the remnants of the moribund "Unification or Death!" was on the destruction of Austria-Hungary. When I saw the glaring errors, such as Apis being exiled, instead of put to death as he was, I couldn't leave it be. But really, someone else needs to correct the early years. Even "Unification or Death"'s victory in the parliament momentarily throwing out Pasic in May 1914 is better written about by someone else. Werchovsky 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, most resources on Union or Death are part of larger WWI resources, so they inevitable look at it only as the spark of the European powderkeg. User:RideABicycle/Signature 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Black Hand's objective was Yugoslavism, Serb rule from Monastir, Macedonia, to Lubjana, Slovenia. To achieve that end they have to come into conflict with Austria Hungary. Half of the dreamed of Yugoslavia's 99,000 square miles lay within Austria Hungary in the 49,000 square miles which incorporated Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia. The Balkan War acquisitions were minor, by comparison. Further, Franz Ferdinand's desire for reform, or as it is known, Trialism, would have been the death knell of Yugoslavia. As Franz Joseph nearly died that spring, and was 84 years old, Colonel Dimitrijevic had to move quickly to instigate a war with Austria, which he, and the Russian Military Attache General Viktor Artamonov, apparently and erroneously believed that the allies would win quickly and easily.

Finally, in a parochial sense, to a Serb, the Balkan War achievements would be as important as the instigation of the Austrian war. However, for the rest of the planet, from London, England to London, Ontario, from Paris, France to Paris, Tennessee, the instigation of the First World War is infinitely more important than any Serb Balkan War territorial acquisitions.Kuk1910 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense being added by the same user again and again

[edit]

Please take a look at the following statement, inserted over five times by the same user all of the territories containing Yugoslav populations (Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, etc) annexed by Austria-Hungary in October 1908. As anyone with even a basic knowledge of Yugoslav history knows, this statement is complete rubbish. Slovenia became a part of the Austrian empire almost 1000 years before 1908, Croatia many hundreds of years before. The area that was annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908 was present-day Bosnia. The original statement in the article makes this clear, stating that we're talking about Bosnia. However, th anonymous user replaces this correct statement with his own nonsense. As all the user is doing on Wikipedia is pushinh his own view of Yugoslav history (virtually all his edits are on Yugoslav history, most of the time with an aggresive Yugoslav POV-pushing), his edit is not surprising - but it's wrong, POV and bordering on vandalism to insert the same nonsense over and over again.JdeJ 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting your own opinion into this article. AUSTRIA HUNGARY DID NOT EXIST FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.. You have no clue about history... Slovenia being admitted 1000 years before and Croatia "hundres of years before"??? Please stop with your false, uninformed edits to this article. Read about Ilirski Pokret, the yugoslav committee, and about croats and slovenes being unhappy in the austro-hungarian empire.. Serbs, along with Bosnian muslims, also being interested in a state that unified all south slavs (jugosloveni, jugoslaveni, jugoslovani)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 (talk • contribs) 14:36 1 June 2007.
To begin with, your accusations are verging on the silly. I'm not inserting any opinion of my own, I'm merely reverting the page to its previous form, created by other contributors. And it seems you don't understand what the problem is. Nobody denies any of the facts you mention, about Iliriski Pokret, Croats and Slovenes in Austria-Hungary etc. The problem is that in your Yugoslav POV-pushing, you're so eager to replace facts with your own views that you don't even take the time to read through the results of your edits. In this article you're not only violating history, you're also abusing the English language.
Let me ask you a few simple questions here
1. Was Slovenia annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908?
2. Was Croatia annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908?
3. Was there a significant Slovene population living in Bosnia prior to 1908?
You know as well as I do that the answer to all three questions is no, yet you continue to revert to your own version stating exactly that. I think you're not even aware of it, since you probably never took the time to read through it. And no offence intended, but you do seem to have a problem with the English language. I never claimed Austria-Hungary existed for 'thousands of years', and it's a well-known fact that the Slovenian lands came under German domination around 1300. If you revert to your made-up version again, please take the time to inform us which of the three questions above that you want to answer yes to. JdeJ 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are claiming that the austro-hungarian empire existed for 1000 years, clearly you are uninformed. That croatia was part of this empire for "hundreds of years", and that yugoslavia was only the interest of the serbs. You are very incorrect. The date you keep mentioning has nothing to do with the fact that croats and slovenes alike sought independence from austro-hungary because of suppression, but you are also claiming that the black hand was an organization for aiming at greater serbia, very wrong. The Black hand was formed in response to austro-hungary's unfairness , and its inhabitans were witnesses of unfair treatment since administration by the empire in 1878. Gavrilo, who was part of the group, after killing franz ferdinand and his wife in sarajevo, stated "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reisender (talk • contribs) 15:06 1 June 2007.
Ps I have made the article more historically accurate, as it now mentions that the black hand was financed by serbia and that their intention was to not only unify serbs, but the rest of the yugoslav population as well..

User:Spiramind

[edit]

Spiramind added blatant advertisings on a band called "Black Hand." There seem to be many pop-culture references to Black Hand (specifically Sarajevo), and there should be a program to determine what is significant enough to be included in this page, and even if something should get its own page. However, we must also keep at the front of out minds the fact that any pop-culture references to Black Hand must be DIRECTLY referring to Black Hand/Union or Death. Just because "Black Hand" is the name of a faction in a computer game does not mean that it deserves to be here. Perhaps the same factoid could be included in the computer game's page. I also propose that and pop culture references which originate from a band, book, etc. that does not have its own Wikipedia page be removed from Black Hand. User:RideABicycle/Signature 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't mind removing the pop culture references entirely even. --Michael Lynn 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be to only way to do it. Perhaps we should cut the section. How about we cut pop-culture by August 7th if there are no further objections? User:RideABicycle/Signature 01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, i think the article will be stronger without it... --Michael Lynn 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather Part II, Don Fanucci, the local mafiosa, is referred to as being "..with the Black Hand" by Genco Abbandando, a friend of the young Vito Corleone.

This sentence is removed because the Black Hand in the movie - The Godfather Part II, is connect with to this organization: Black Hand (extortion), or La Mano Nera in Italian, was a type of extortion racket, gangsters of Camorra and the Mafia practiced it. The roots of the Black Hand can be traced to Sicily and throughout the rest of Kingdom of Naples as early as the 1750s. -Gaston28 - 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for clearing that up. User:RideABicycle/Signature 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

further examples in popular culture. in command and conquer series(video games), the brother hood of nod faction has a sub faction called the black hand that initially specializes in secret operations.

the faction of players called the Imperium in eve online (formally the Cluster Fuck Coalition) has an entire intelligence division called the blackhand, that specalises in spying and disestablishing its enimes

Mistake in text

[edit]

"Black Hand" was never finansed by Serbia,but their members were some of the most influental Serbian officiers.Acctually the same group organised murder of Serbian king in 1903 (Alexandar Obrenovic)and tried to do the same in 1917. (Petar Karadjordjevic).After recieving those informations all members were arrested and send to jail exept the leaders which were sentesed to death. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.78.94 (talk) 00:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Azania

[edit]
"Major Tankosic died in November 1915 covering the Serbian retreat, but not before confessing his role in the assassination to historians at Azania."

What Azania is this? I found no references to such a place or establishment in Serbia, or elsewhere in Europe. — Itai (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A town in Serbia. -- Bojan  Talk  15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Since most of the information in this section has nothing to do with the actual subject of this article, and those that do are only vaguely relevant, I suggest this entire section be deleted, and a hidden comment be inserted saying not to create a new "pop culture" section. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; none of these references tell the reader anything notable about the Serbian organization, and only the The West Wing example puts the reference in any sort of context. I say remove with prejudice. скоморохъ 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian criminal organization

[edit]

About the Italian criminal organization best known as Black Hand, I think we should create a page. Prior to the creation of the Serbian military organization, it was well known in the US and Europe. Take a look at this American weekly, The Independent (March 18, 1909). http://cgi.ebay.com/Camorra-Black-Hand-Murder-Petrosino-1909-Texas-Lynching_W0QQitemZ300210830523QQihZ020QQcategoryZ280QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQ_trksidZp1638.m118.l1247QQcmdZViewItem --Jackblues 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

language

[edit]

"toughly worded letter" is a clumsy way to put what was intended, seen as toughly as far as i know isn't even a word. i'm not sure what to change it to so i am making people aware of it so they can change it, maybe i'm being petty. (DrewCrawshaw (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewCrawshaw (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in fact that whole sentence might need to be changed,

"On July 23rd, Austria-Hungary delivered a toughly worded letter to Serbia with ten enumerated demands and additional demands in the preamble aimed at the destruction of the anti-Austrian terrorist and propaganda network in Serbia"

if it wasn't for the relatively simple subject matter it would descend into almost complete nonsense. (DrewCrawshaw (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

can the neologism triplice be replaced by triumvirate, it seems more appropriate. (DrewCrawshaw (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Most of the underground railroad that transported them were also arrested, tried, and convicted"

Eh?

(DrewCrawshaw (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]


I know nothing of the Black Hand (came here to learn) so do not feel qualified to fix the following language issue.

Under History, the first paragraph ends with: "The main weapons of assassination chosen organised the successful assassination of King Alexander I of Serbia and his consort Draga; he confirmed that Captain Dragutin Dimitrijevic, who had personally led the group of Army officers who killed the royal couple in the Old Palace at Belgrade on the night of 28/29 May 1903 (Old Style), was also the Black Hand's leader."

I'm not sure what this was meant to communicate but the sentence needs to be reworked. Maybe a bad translation? Jfish222 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons

[edit]

The article should maybe try to explain just how close (or how far) the Black Hand was to the Freemasons. A recurring theme in conspiracy theories about World War I is that a small band of Masonic assassins ultimately contributed in provoking the conflict. ADM (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that makes no sense. Just because there is a conspiracy theory does not mean the article should respond to it. If there is a valid source that says something about the Masons, that is one thing, otherwise, it should not be mentioned. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The black hand on facebook

[edit]

what about this?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Black-Hand/1395357170

they are hacking into our facebook group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.75.252 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the leader?

[edit]

Who was the leader of the Black Hand at the time of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary's assassination? TwilightKing81 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Colonial Dragutin Dimitrijevic?

[edit]

In the section 1.1 "History - The Birth of the Black Hand" there is the sentence:

At the top was the ten-member Executive Committee led, more or less, by Colonial Dragutin Dimitrijevic, (also known as Apis ).

I wonder whether "Colonial" should not be replaced by "Colonel" as I think that this is the military rank of Dimitrijevic.

MichiWe (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time he carried out the assassination of King Alexander and Queen Draga in 1903 he held the rank of captain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual formation date

[edit]

The article says the Black Hand was formed in 1911; however historian C. L. Sulzberger in his Fall of Eagles says that Black Hand was behind the assassination of King Alexander I and Queen Draga in 1903, with Apis being the leader.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is conflicting information in the document. The first paragraph states that the Black Hand "was founded on September 6, 1901". "Birth of the Black Hand", however, states that "Ten men met on 9 May 1911 to form Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Unification or Death), better known as the Black Hand." If these statements are both true, then this requires clarification. I lack enough information to know why there are two different dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.10.78 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Zoupan 05:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving this article to Black Hand (Serbia), making disambig page main BH article

[edit]

I'm not clear as to why this article should be the main Black Hand page, as it appears there are other organisations of similar name of similar levels of notability. I suggest the disambig page Black Hand (disambigaution) be moved to the plain Black Hand title, this article to Black Hand (Serbia). If there's some counterargument that the majority of people googling/wiki-searching "Black Hand" would be looking for this group vice others of similar name, it'd be good to lay out here. Otherwise recommend making the disambig the main page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hand is still there

[edit]

Black Hand existed after the First World War, and after the Second World War. It was founded as a secret association of Serb military, but later spread to other armies. A member of the Black Hand Mujko Golubic was founded its branch in the Red Army between the two world wars. Stalin even gave him the rank of general. During World War II member of the Black Hand Colonel Zivan Knezevic established its branch in the U.S. military. He was awarded the Legion of Merit by the American president Harry Truman. Association during the 20th century become secretly international military association and now has branches in more armies. Most of the Trader Arms in a world are members of the Black Hand. Originally established by the freemasons, because the father of this organization Dragutin Dimitrijevic was a free mason.--Свифт (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not allow any of this nutty stuff in the article. Some sources of these ideas, and who promotes them might be put in a separate section. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

Not sure why a Croatian editor reverted my removal of a section template, as their revert had no explanation, which is poor form to begin with. The article already has a template requesting sources for the entire length of the article, and most of the article is completely unsourced, thus it is against guidelines to stick additional templates in sections and subsections. The whole needs proper sourcing, as the main template indicates. Are there any other issues at hand, such as accuracy or neutrality? Laval (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why my origin is worthy of mention, it's as if it matters? I simply think it's better to have N {{unreferenced|section}} templates than just one top {{refimprove}} - presumably someone noticed that entirely unreferenced section and thought it specifically was a problem worth pointing the readers to. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues, mostly neutrality

[edit]

First of all, it seems that this article was created with merging of two different articles, with almost opposite statements. Different dates of creation are only a mere example. It is not clear whether Black Hand was a Yugoslav or Greater-Serbian organization. Perhaps it seems unimportant to some authors, however historically IT IS important. Greater Serbia would have comprised only of those territories with Serbian majority, and Yugoslavia was based on the principle of national egality of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (where Montenegrins and Macedonians are considered as Serbs, and Muslims as South Slavs by origin). In the Black Hand`s oath from 1910, it is clear that this organization is commited towards creation of Yugoslavia. If some authors consider it as Greater Serbia, they mismanaged two different concepts, which were, however, actual at that time. I would also add another concept, the Balkan Federation, which had been, however, abandoned as of 1913. The part of this article which does not have any references suddenly transforms this organization from pro-Yugoslavian to Serbian nationalist. It is also notable that a sister organization, Young Bosnia did have some Muslim members, who also participated in June 28th assasination, and they were supporters of Yugoslavia. What is more, Dragutin Dimitrijevic Apis vowed- during the execution of his own death penalty- "Long live Yugoslavia!"--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant plagiarism

[edit]

The entire "Birth of the Black Hand" section is copied almost word for word from an article called "The Black Hand: The Secret Serbian Terrorist Society" (viewable here http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/blk-hand.html). Even the heading of the copied section is the exact same. I personally am not confidant in my ability to rephrase this while retaining the meaning, but this is a fairly major issue that should be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.189.150 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

writing style

[edit]

the idea flow is convoluted and not easy to follow. it very much seems like the article was written predominantly by hands that use english as a second language, or that is was machine-translated into english from a non-english version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.131.72 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuk1910 edits

[edit]

I am opening a new section regarding the edits of Kuk1910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his comments here on the talk-page, since it seems that he needs help and guidance regarding Wikipedia procedures. This is what he wrote in his last comment here on the talk-page:

Respectfully request BGWhite to please reinstate edits to article placed by KuK1910, or failing that, submit edits to a neutral third party for review. This article, as it stands, consists of unsubstantiated opinions, lacks a satisfactory number and quality of citations, and is exceptionally biased. As a postscript, I have rewritten the edit of August 31, 2015, with a view to increasing the overall neutrality of the language of the revision. I do not want to tire everyone with another posting to this page, so I will happily email it to the reviewer, post to my talk page, the talk page for this article, or post to the talk page of the third party.Kuk1910 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are his edits, that besides wrongly formted, seem controversial: diff1 and diff2. He has also been leaving comments on several old threads at this talk-page indicating his point of view. FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuk1910 and FkpCascais:. Neither one of you are actually talking about what has been added. Before anyone adds or reverts anything else....
  1. Kuk1910, please do not add your signature to articles.
  2. Leave the infobox and lead paragraph alone for a bit. They summarize what is in the article, so lets move to the article.
  3. In KuK's last edit, FkpCascais could you say why it should be reverted. Why is it controversial? What is wrong? KuK, could you then respond to FkpCascais' reply.
Bgwhite (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To BGWhite, Sir, Sorry, when you previously said that I add signatures to the talk page, but not to the article, I took that to be a gentle criticism that I had failed to add signatures to the article. In short, I misunderstood your directions, and apologize sincerely. I am stepping away from the article and will allow FkpCascais, to make his case as to why my posting should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuk1910 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Wiki link for Milan Marinković is incorrect, it redirects to a professional basketball player born in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.154.233 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Hand (Serbia" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Black Hand (Serbia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Black Hand (Serbia until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Hand_(Serbia)&oldid=1211651322"