Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disputed

This article is clearly used to push a political agenda. There is no scientific proof that this can be characterized as psychological disorder (phobia). Whoever put it up should present some proof.--Dado 22:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who says it is about "physical disorder"? Please read Phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. mikka (t) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If no actual backing for a legit and notable existance of this term exists i suggest that we move to strike ---> SpeedyDel. Chelman

• Usage mentioned in the article. Buy yourself google. The term was in use even before WWI. mikka (t) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also do not confuse the POV which is expressed by the term itself and the POV of wikipedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to legitimately present any POV in a NPOV way. mikka (t) 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of the phrase was political not scientific and it was also POV and pushing of political agenda. The article is not clear about the use of the term. POV + POV does not make NPOV. Sorry, but no evidence has been presented and the phrase is being misused today for various political goals. POV tag is back until some scientific NPOV proof is presented. --Dado 23:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is schism. "Serbophobia" is claiming to be phobia (clinical). I could accept the note that this article is meant in its non-clinical i.e. political sense although I think that the whole article is non-sense and has no base in reality. As the article curretly reads it is POV and has no information to support the claim. --Dado 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you read? A notable person mentioned who used the word in available document. This is reality. Many Serbs like to use this word. Please read the policy NPOV then come back. mikka (t) 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I can read, and your presumption of my "(i)literacy" has been noted. If you cared to notice someone has removed your note that "The term is used in a non-clinical sense" (which I generally agree with) before you added it back again. Obviouslly the intention of the original author of the article was quite different from what you are claiming. I should also point out rather dangerous conclusion of the statement "as exemplified by a New York Times article (April 1, 2001), Milosevic Is Accused, but All of Serbia Is on Trial". This could be interpreted as implicitly accusing New York Times of racism. Something that may entertain NYT attorneys as potential slander of the newspaper. I would suggest removing it --Dado 03:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for harsh tone.

I don't care about the initial intentions of the author, which was an obvious misnomer, which I fixed. I am not "claiming" anything. I added not a single my interpretation of the term: it is a bare definition, easily found elsewhere, and examples of usage.

If the title of the NYT article is not racism (i.e., declaring that the whole nation is bad; a textbook example), then I don't know what else racism is. I am ready to stand this trial. I would politely suggest you to think about free speech and, more important in terms of "trial", about the difference between what is written and what is read. mikka (t) 03:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This metaphorical way of thinking of the nation as a person is very common in political discourse. Look up conceptual metaphor. This is certainly not restricted to serbia/serbians. - FrancisTyers 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All I meant to say is that the title was possibly taken out of context (as it is done many times). This should be as simple as "don't judge the book by its cover". --Dado 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the article. Besides, context or not, precisely the title sparkled the protest. And of course the "killer title" was deliberate, not just not a slip of tongue. It was a mass hysteria in the USA, just like they tried to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and many other campaigns, to justify bombing someone (arsenals must be refreshed, you know, and it is cheaper to bomb someone than to safely dispose an old bomb (my pet theory :-)) mikka (t) 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we are using comparisons and I think that your reference to the mass hysteria about "weapons of mass destruction" realy refers to maybe Islamophobia (or maybe Arabophobia). As an example, prior to the invation of Iraq about 600 Arabs were arrested in USA as suspects of terrorism. They were held for varied lengths of time (some as long as 3 months) only to have one (1) person charged for violations of immigration law and others released. Speaking of mass hysteria I think most Americans don't even know who are Serbs and where Serbia is (and why should they). The NYT article is completely irrelevant for reasons that 1. it is incorect 2. it is an obscure opinion piece 3. has no basis in reality in portraying the contemporary culture in USA (to which it appeals) towards Serbs

This is not the evidence that is needed to justify this article --Dado 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore the title refers to Serbia Is on Trial. which could be interpreted as Serbia as institution is on trial and not Serbs as people. Last time I checked Serbia is country of many nations. If there are no further objections I will remove this sentance. --Dado 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The term was used, e.g., by Danon Cadik, Chief Rabbi of Yugoslavia et. al. in the open letter to the American Jewish Committee in 1995 during the bombing of the Serbs by Nato.

There is a matter of accuracy in using the term Serbophobia in this statement. The above Rabbi was refering to bombing of military positions of Republika Srpska Army during the Operation Deliberate Force whose objective was to undermine the military capability of Bosnian Serbs. Serbs as civilians were not the target. The use of the term is to say the least "wrong" and appeal to emotions to push particular POV agenda. --Dado 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am listing this article for deletion as the side who started this article has not presented valid claims and/or answered the issues raised on the discussion page. The last edit shows that we are dealing with an issue that is being "force-fed" to Wikipedia and it is not being done in good faith. In fact as the article currently stands it is being used for particular agenda and further POV pushing on other articles.--Dado 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well now we have what seems to be a image of a weapon that was used in Jasenovac concentration camp. As much as I respect what happened to Serbs in Jasenovac, how is this image relevant for this article. It's place is on the article about Jasenovac or otherwise it is appeal to emotions and its relevance for this article is a stretch. --Dado 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it could be relevant because of its name? Nikola 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So far I have a feeling that I am leading a monologue here so if no one has anything to say about issues presented above I will be reverting the page to a version I think makes this article bareable and NPOV --Dado 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

1.Serbophobia is not a term in use in Croatian nor Bosnian language or it as much in use as in any other language. It is a term that was "manufactured" by the Serbian academics for reasons already mentioned in the article and it is perhaps only used in Serbia today. There is no reason to list any variations of the word except in Serbian.

I have easily found two Croatian examples: [1] and [2]. Nikola 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you Croatian but I still think it is used only as much as in any other language.--Dado 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2.Again we had a picture on this article that was nothing more than an appeal to emotions. It has nothing to do with the term itself.

I will return the other picture. That someone designed a knife specially for slaughtering Serbs and named it so is as good example of Serbophobia as one could get. Nikola 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in your head. Quite a sick way to justify a political term. It was removed before and it should be removed again. Place it where it belongs (Jasenovac) --Dado 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3.Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This accusations/garbage is not helping and is highly offensive agenda especially since such claims cannot be proven.

I am attempting to make this article as neutral as possible something that I have said in my commentary about deletion that will be almost imposible to do and because of it the article would be best deleted. If the article is reverted again without discussions on this page it will be a vandalism in progress and could well see another round of deletion considerations.--Dado 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. The fact is that certain (the word some) groups of the mentioned people do hate Serbs. Like some Serbs hate these and other people.heh-you cannot say this is untrue.--TheFEARgod 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that it is untrue as no one can suffer from Serbophobia because it is not a phobia but a political accusation. In a same way the sentance above is an insulting political accusation and Wikipedia is not a place for spreading of political agenda. --Dado 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

prove Serbs are not hated among the people with whom the Serbs were at war!

Are you kidding me? You make a dubious claim and I have to prove it if it is true or not. What am I, your intern?

Dado, nisi domar ali si bezobrazan preko svake mere. Znas dobro da mnogi mrze Srbe, pocev od tebe samoga i jos trazis da ti neko to dokazuje. Stidi se, i to je najmanje sto ti mogu reci. Nikola 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Dado, you are not "domar" but you are arrogant above all. You know well that many hate Serbs, starting from yourself and than you ask for others to prove it to you. Be ashamed and that is least that I can tell you.

I asked others not to pin blame in a fascist manner to entire nations for something that is not even proven and is an insulting accusation. You are resorting to personal and emotional attacks now to discredit valid arguements that I have pointed out and you are making insulting accusations towards me personally. Perhaps you should check your behaviour on this and other articles of similar subject for a change. --Dado 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and POVing over entire Wikipedia, including this statement where you implied that I am a fascist. You have no valid arguments whatsoever. Nikola 13:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A little less hypocracy wouldn't hurt you Smolenski. Dado never implied you were fascist, merely that you pinned blame in a "fascist manner". Do you remember this talk page Nikola? Here when User:HolyRomanEmperor called one of my notes "purely fascistic" you were quick to point out to me that "He didn't say that. One fascist remark doesn't mean that you are fascist overall."[3]. Well Nikola, here I'd like to point out that one instance of pinning the blame in a fascist manner doesn't mean that you are fascist overall either. Cheers. Asim Led 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article already talks about this term as a political statement so you cannot prove that anyone is suffering from this "phobia". Use your head and not your emotions for a change.

For psycholocical analysis or a case study of the war in Bosnia read "Than they started shooting: Growing Up In Wartime Bosnia" by Lynne Jones, for start. You need some serious reality check.

The article is being reverted --Dado 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... Nikola 13:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Among those three nations Serbs have had far outnumbered other two nations, had far strongest political power and had their dinasty Karadjordjevici for a Yugoslavias rulers.

Why is this sentence relevant for this article? --Dado 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 10 sentances (noted ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ) that require a source or a citation. Until sources are provided or sentances are removed the article is considered Wikipedia:Original research. Removal of Original research warrning tag can be considered Wikipedia:Vandalism --Dado 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Croats were ruled by serbian king and serbian politians. Then, the Serbophobia was founded. Then the incidents started... There was a big one in parlament, then someone got shot... --Milan Tešovic 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh ?????--Dado 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dado

May I note that you seem the ideal person to illustrate this term, as you find the very word Serbophobia itself offensive. Why don't those Serbs just shut up and admit they belong to an evil genocidal nation, that deserves everything it gets, eh? Why do they keep insisting that they have rights too? Those goddamn pesky Serbs... ;) :) --estavisti 04:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest not to start a Balkan war here? I know, the topic is very heated, but please... Offensive or not, there is nothing surprising that many of these <ethnic>phobias are used on the both sides of barricades: one side is accused of a 'phobia, the other one retorts that it is a slander. mikka (t) 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, let's just keep and expand the article. --estavisti 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So are you acusing me of racism if I am asking for author to present some evidence. It is quite remarkable how fast you go the full circle from implying Serbophobia as something Serbs should defend themselves from and than going into offense by acussing random people (who you know nothing about) of Serbophobia. --Dado 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dado, Serbophobia exists and very much (as for Croats, it is also combined with savage anti-Semitism) - and Jasenovac and Ustase can provide a definite proof for this. If you are blind it is your own problem. Yes Serbs are quite vengeful, but it wasn't them who started the bloodshed in Balkans. As for your native country, Bosnia, you can take the SS Hanjar division as a proof (created by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a great buddy of Hitler, BTW). I removed POV section marking since you do not refer to the article CONTENTS as POV, but to the TERM ITSELF as POV. And this is not correct. The contents are not biased, and the term is perfectly legitimate, as much as anti-Semitism, Armenophobia or Anglophobia. Remark: I am a pro-Serbian Israeli Jew born in ex-USSR. --Aleverde 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC+2)

estavisti, you are complitely right. Why don't those Serbs just shut up and admit they belong to an evil genocidal nation, that deserves everything it gets, eh? Why do they keep insisting that they have rights too? Those goddamn pesky Serbs... ;) :) --Milan Tešovic 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Notable / Neologism

Mikka, I suggest you temper your abrasive and offensive tone of voice. It buys you nothing here. I still claim that the term is not notable and most likely a neologism. It yields 430 Google hits many of which are duplicates of a WSJ article and many more of which are used on balkan related fora rather than on scholarly sites. I do find a single reference from around the WW1 period in a short bio of Franz Conrad von Hotzendorff [4] but as you can see for yourself it doesn't claim that he used the word himself; it more than likely was introduced by the bio writer. If you compare it with terms such as Russophobia (29.000 hits) or Sinophobia (14.400) the statistical (in)significance becomes even more obvious. Since the term bears so little recognition, its inclusion in Wikipedia is not justified IMHO other than to drive a self-victimizing POV. Chelman 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider use of alternative terms and use in other languages:

• Serbophobia: 437
• "Anti-serbism": 137
• Serbophobie: 156 (French)
• "anti-serbisme": 34
• srbofobija OR србофобија: 720

Also, you are wrong when you say that many of the mentions are duplicates of WSJ article. Searching for a phrase from the article ("If the Albanians can make promises to protect Serb shrines") gives only 20 hits, and of those some are opinions about the article which present a quote from it. 20 of 430 is hardly many.

20 of 430 is nearly 5% This is statistically significant. Chelman 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare also real danger of Russians and Serbs. For examle, per Wikipedia articles, GDP of Serbia and Montenegro is $25.98 billion, while GDP of Russia is $1.408 trillion, which is 54 times more (GDP is relevant because a portion of it is used to finance the army; if Serbia and Montenegro and Russia dedicate same share of their GDP to the army, Russia could have an army that is 54 times stronger). Now, if you multiply 437 with 54, you arrive at 23,598, which is comparable to number of mentions of Russophobia.

Nice bit od number juggling there...but it's irrelevant. What does the size of the army and the countries GDP have to do with the existence of a disputed term. Zip. Chelman 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, because it compares real danger of Serbs with perceived danger of Serbs. Nikola 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And lastly, I don't think that Mikkalai's tone could be described as "abrasive and offensive". Nikola 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"self-victimizing POV": You are kidding. I am not Serb and never seen an alive Serb. And I dance Salsa with a Croat girl who says that both Serbs and Croats are idiots, that's why she lives in America now. mikka (t) 07:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Can somebody provide any source for definition of "Serbophobia"? As you all know :) Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Otherwise, the article belongs to Wiktionary, at the best. Just because it was used, doesn't make it a worthy topic, so please provide some sources for the definition. --dcabrilo 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition is a tautology. It would be silly to quote a reference here. But if you reaaly insist, google is your friend: "Serbophobia – the notion that the Serbs as a whole were guilty of events in the Balkans over the past decade, and that Milosevic merely personified the entire nation." One may easily find more. Also, please read carefully wikipedia:Original research. Reporing facts is not Original Research. Explanations and theories are. mikka (t) 06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This would make more sense. The word definately exists but simply does not warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Chelman 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Nikola 09:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Neologism

Well, since neologisms are not allowed on Wikipedia, there should be speedy deletion of Islamophobia, for example. I believe explaining the meaning of the word in a different way can solve the problem.

Interesting analogy. I wonder why you selected Islamophobia.--Dado 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, I didn't select Islamophobia for any specific reason, except that it's about an anti-ethnic term and it's a neologism, according to the article itself. Only that. I could have mentioned "Brazilianphobia"... if there was an article with this name! (I've just found out that there's a Lusophobia article. But this was a feeling very common in the nineteenth century. Nowadays, it's almost forgotten. ;-) (Milena 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Hope I can help somehow.

Milena 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• When I arrived from work, I thought of something: maybe re-writing the article and merging into Yugoslav wars could be a good idea, since the term appears to be from the time of those wars.

Milena 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And this maybe the answer to my question above as much of the Islamophobia could be associated with these wars as well. Could it be that the reason for this article was to counter some of the bad rap Serbs got during Yugoslav wars, as a tool of appologists and to portray Serbs as victims of phobia. Just a thought.

I would still prefer to see some scientific evidence on this matter rather than to shove it into a muddle of Yugoslav Wars. --Dado 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, I suggested merging it into the article about the Yugoslav wars just noting that, here in Brazil, I could see good examples of the bad repercussion of those wars on the image of the few Serbian immigrants (and their families). Only that. It seems you misunderstood me, I'm really sorry... Milena 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a reference in book Communication in Eastern Europe: The Role of History, Culture, and Media in Contemporary Conflicts, itself published in 1995, by Fred L. Casmir (who is Professor of Communication, Coordinator International Studies Major Division of Communication, and International Studies major at Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA): Furthering this incipient nation-fever was the extraordinary memorandum issued to the public in 1986 by the prestigious Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, condemning the perceived presence of "Serbophobia" in the central government of Yugoslavia. Is a word still a neologism after 20 years of use? Nikola 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at List of anti-ethnic terms. What not include other there? HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article is about term found in newspapers and books. You don`t like it? So do I. But this term is still in use. --JustUser 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the article. But it is bound to improve (one way or another). By the way; if it deals just with the term (the actual word) it belongs to the wikidictionary, not encyclopedia. HolyRomanEmperor 12:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor, I think you gave two good ideas, including it in the List of anti-ethnic terms and moving to wiktionary could be a solution. Milena 10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbia on trial

A while above the following phrase:

Furthermore the title refers to Serbia Is on Trial. which could be interpreted as Serbia as institution is on trial and not Serbs as people. Last time I checked Serbia is country of many nations. If there are no further objections I will remove this sentance. --Dado 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You may interpret as you wish, but those who are offended intrepret it quite differently. Also, you are omitting (intentionally or not) two very short words that seriously change the meaning: it is not "Serbia on Trial", but "all of Serbia is on Trial". Also, rather than "interpreting" and guessing, I would strongly suggest to read the aricle. mikka (t) 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quotation for lazy ones of you:

"A criminal trial in Belgrade for embezzlement or even murder would not expose the ways in which thousands of Serbs were involved in and profited from war crimes committed by Milosevic's government. During the Bosnian war, for instance, hundreds of semitrailer truckloads of stolen goods were transported out of Bosnia and into Serbia. "

So the journalist knew what he was doing: he fully intentionally equated a dictator and a bunch of thugs (the ones which may be found during any war to suck blood the others shed) with "all of Serbia". mikka (t) 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The "dictator" (which was democratically elected may I remind) was running the country. He was a legal representative of the country and as a result had to bear the responsibilities and consequences of his actions. Because of his high leadership position it is logical that the entire nation would be affected by his decision, as they were with economic sanctions. Still the author of the article did not specifically point nor implied (in a secion that you pasted) that he refers to the Serbs as a nation. If he had stated anywhere in the article Milosevic Is Accused, but All of Serbs are on Trial than you may have a point. Currently it is a streach to use this as an example and a poor analysis of the op-ed piece.

Even if I add the two words "all of Serbia is on trial" this could refer to all of citizens of Serbia which includes other ethnic groups as well. However, I still don't find that the author's intent was to pin the blame on any nation, but a country. I do not have the entire article to read and this is a second time that you are resorting to diminutive phrases (for lazy ones of you) towards others. As I have pointed out to Pokrajac, since the word in itself is disputed and highly controversial political accusation this article will go nowehere as long as it attempts to pin the blame for Serbophobia to someone especially more contemporary sources such as NY Times. --Dado 16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "diminutive" That's exactly why I am resorting to a diminutive phrase: "you don't have the entire article", yet you are insisting on judging its intentions. mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• "I still don't find": Once again: did you read the article or not? Or shall I go to the librarly, make a photocopy and mail it to you? mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you provide the link to the article? I thought I was clear. I did not read the article because you have not provided the link. My thoughts are based on the information that you provided here. --Dado 02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article does not "pin the blame" onto anybody. It merely lists facts. And the fact is that the article title was interpreted as an example of serbophobia in Serbian press. mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is new information. If you can prove that it was interpreted by the Serbian press in that way than we may be able to work-out a solution.--Dado 02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A few questions

I don't want to talk about disputed content, just about something which I don't understand in diff between two versions: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1. In the Albanian source something with abbervation "AIM" is mentioned. AIM means a lot of things; may someone specify it (or remove the internal link)? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I think that User:Macedonian removed a link to the article in Macedonian. As I think, the sense of the links is not making examples of Serbophobia, but making examples of mentioning the term (or similar terms), I think that it should be kept. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I don't understand why some general links about/from Serbia exist inside of this article? Maybe some internal link to Serbs and/or to Serbia can be useful, but I think that those links are nonsense. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Diff

This one (last one), of course. --millosh (talk (sr:))

I am not sure about the photo of the knife... It is an example of extreme serbophobia, but I am not completely sure do this belong here. In other words, I don't know should it be here or not. Hm. Maybe some photo with more sense can stay here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But, I think that we can solve the paragraph: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

One edit: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions. Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.

Another edit: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions. The term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people.

I think that it is clear that both paragraphs have true statemants: Yes, a lot of Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians from Kosovo have anti-Serb(ian) feelings (which is the definition of serbophobia) 'and, yes, it is used as a political tool to blame (not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians from Kosovo. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, my suggestion of the paragraph is (correct my English): --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions.

As a behaviour, Serbophobia is spread today among some (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.

As a political accusation, the term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians (but not only them) as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people.

Does anyone has something against this proposal? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are starting with the premise that Serbophobia is a psychological condition as its name implies yet there is 0 evidence or proof that this can be considered as such so your starting premise is wrong. I thought that the rest of the article and prior discussion are clear about that and I will not go any further into it.

Quote: As a behaviour, Serbophobia is spread today among some (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.

The article is about the political term "Serbophobia" as it is used in the political sense and as a subject of a debate. As such no one can actually "suffer" from serbophobia as your segment is implying. Any implications that someone is "suffering" from Serbophobia is at the same time a political acusation and nothing more. You even go a step further to state that the Serbophobia is "spread" as if it is a disiease. The last sentence is again an extension of the first as it reapeats that it is a "feeling" but it is even worse as it is ambigious and self defeating by stating some Serbs "simply left their homes". It would not pass even as a false theory. In its mildest form the whole segment is an example of personal analisys, something that is not acceptable on Wikipedia (not even to mention that it is potentially Wikipedia:Libel).

Regarding the image, I have repeatedly said that it is an appeal to emotions while it has nothing to do with the term itself. Some have even gone to claim a conection between first part of the name Serbo-sjek and Serbo-phobia which is ridiculous. The image has a lot more to do with facsist regime in NDH and Jasenovac concentration camp so it should be placed there. Using it here for political purposes is outright degrading. --Dado 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree about the image. It has nothing to do with the article. Milena 10:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

E, uopste mi nije to bilo na pameti. Rekoh "correct my English". Ocigledno je da "ponasanje" ima drugo primarno znacenje u engleskom. Ustanovilo se (kako mi se cini ranije) da se ne govori o psihickoj pojavi nego o drustvenoj. Ako si na to mislio. Preslozi sam u smislu etnicke netrpeljivosti, koja je fakt. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Drugim recima, to jeste i netrpeljivost prema jednom etnicitetu, a i koristi se kao politicka optuzba. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ponovo greska. Ne radi se ni o drustvenoj ni psihickoj pojavi vec o politickoj optuzbi. Da bi pojam bio drustvena ili psihicka pojava ona mora biti naucno dokazana sto u ovom slucaju nije nikad uradjeno (niti vidim kako moze biti). Posto ovaj termin se inherentno odnosti na zadnje ratove i prvenstveno na rat u BiH mozda jedina i vjerovatno najbolja analiza psiholoskih posljedica rata i odnosa medju ljudima mozes naci u knjizi koju sam gore naveo :"Than they started shooting: Growing Up In Wartime Bosnia" by Lynne Jones (za pocetak) koja je mozda i jedina do sad napisana na temu psihologije i drustvene dinamike poslijeratnog perioda u BiH. Neznam da li trebam uopste napominjati da se Srbofobija nigdje i ne pominje.

Etnicka netrpeljivost je nesto sto se nemoze oznaciti ni kao "Srbofobija", "Hrvatofobija" ili "Bosnjakofobija" vec kao kompleksna kombinacija pobrkanih licnih i kolektivnih interesa. Udaranje pecata na tu dinamiku kao vrstu fobija je samo simplisticna politicka manipulacija kako bi se narod zaglupio i drzao pod kontrolom.

Na kraju bih savjetovao da ako se ova konverzacija mora produziti da se vratimo na engleski kako ne bi iskljucivali ostala potencijalna misljenja. --Dado 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Da, u pravu si sto se tice slike. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nece se duziti. Shvatio sam da ne vredi pricati. Necu se vise baviti ovim clankom. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, why not writing in English??? Milena 10:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) Communication for us is more easy then in English. (2) Sometime it is more easy to solve problem without others. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points but sometimes an extra voice doesn't hurt.--Dado 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We didn't solve anything, so conversation can be continued in English. (Also, I don't want to work on this article anymore because I don't see how the problem can be solved.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that there was anything to solve except the disputed content version that was being reverted and a picture (which we apparently did solve). Let me know if you have any issues with the version that I talked about. --Dado 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To reverter

Why does the info I added about racial slurs keep getting reverted? If there is a word which is used exclusively as a racial slur for Serbs, that seems like extremely relevent information to this article.

because the reverter wants to prove that there is no hatred towards Serbs and that they are the only negative side in the 1991-1999 Balkan wars.--TheFEARgod 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

or because racial slurs have nothing to do with serbophobia which is defined as a political acusation and (for the hundreth time) not as a phobia in a pscychological sense as the name is trying to imply or as the above user is agressivelly pushing. For a condition to be accepted as a phobia one needs to have scientific proof and it is where this term (serbophobia) fails misserably. The burden of proof has made this article acceptable only if it refers to a political accusation.

Racial slurs have alot more to to with dehumanisation of a particular ethnic group or race and are related to nationalism and in a severe case to fascist doctrine. Racial slurs used for dehumanisation are also found in Eight Stages of Genocide.

I suggest you to read the discussion above. --Dado 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming it is a psychological condition, you assumed that simply because it has phobia in its name. It is simply a dislike of Serbs, nothing more nothing less. Russophobia is a universally accepted term used to describe dislike of Russians, yet no one claims that's a psychologicla condition. Serbophobia is a dislike of Serbs and if there is an ethnic slur used for Serbs that needs to be mentioned in this article.

I am not claiming that it is phobia. That is in fact my point. The article starts with the premise that the term is an acusation. However your first segments that you have added is deceptively implying that it is in fact a condition (phobia), as something that is found among some group etc etc.. Perhaps we can resolve it this way

Another example of the term being used as an acusation is the interpretation of the word shkija as Serbophobic, which in the Albanian language is a derogatory word for Serbs used by Albanians and as similar to how nigger is used by white supremacists in the USA.

Second segment is completely wrong and short of completely deleting it I don't see a fix. For now I am reverting the segment that you have deleted and we can add the one above if you agree.--Dado 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding latest version proposed by anonymous user, following item is possibly acceptable:

The term is used in a non-clinical sense. While the term has entered mainstream usage in Serbian, its use in the English language has been limited and it does not appear in major English dictionaries.

The section that was added "Examples of Serbophobia" is a fairy tale and completely unsubstantiated. Section "Criticism" is just badly written as if only Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians think that Serbophobia does not exist. Let me remind that most of the accusations of Serbophobia were directed towards western world.--Dado 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The section clearly says: Some people, mostly Croats, Bosniaks, and Kosovar Albanians. It is complete opposite of what you say it says. Nikola 13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We can add mostly to this version

The term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame mostly on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. --Dado 16:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your gripe with the current revision? It even has a criticism section to provide the other pov. What is not npov about it?

I think I have explained it at least 5 times above. Read it. I have also proposed 3 other versions but no one seams to listen here. Your continued ingnoring of other's views is quickly turning this article into vandalism.--Dado 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. The part that says "the term is generally used as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats/Muslims/Albanians" is completely untrue and has no place in the article. Imagine if someone put such a claim in the anti-semitism article. Doctor Robotnik 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not read a thing I wrote and you are arrogantly ignoring arguements. There is 0 evidence that this term can be considered in a phobic sense and that is what current version is suggesting especially in first section and in examples and criticism sections. There is 0 analysis done on this subject in the field of psychology. Only place where this term is used is in politics and that is where most of the sources are based. Your reference to anti semitism makes no sense at all. This article has passed AfD voting on a premise that the article can be written only as defining political accusation. Otherwise we are dealing here with neologism and original research niether of which are permited on Wikipedia and which could justify a complete deletion of this article. --Dado 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dado, since this article has been written, you are doing nothing but reverting it. You add nothing to the discussion and are not providing any arguments. There is 0 evidence that this term can be considered in a phobic sense - the article does not say it does, anywhere; to the contraty, it clearly says that the term is used in a non-clinical sense. On the other hand your version says that Serbophobia is a political accusation of hatred towards Serbs, which is completely not true. The term is not neologism, being 20 years old, and the article doesn't have original research. So I am reverting to the other version. Nikola 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this article has been written it has been a playground of serbian nationalist trying to sell the notion that Serbophobia is something that Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians are suffering from which would somehow explain why there was a war in Bosnia or in Kosovo. It is an insulting insunuation and it borders Personal attack and libel. You have quoted one sentence from your version that is not actually disputed and it can be found in both versions so what you are obviously trying to do is to divert the issue that is obvious in sections "Examples" and "Criticism". Other than stating it is not true, which is your extent of the argument, what other proof do you have that is nothing more than a political acusation. The term can be a neologism if you are defining it differently from what it is. I have provided plenty arguments and I have a feeling that I am leading a monologue on this discussion page as everyone else see's this article as a battlefield. --Dado 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is upon you to prove that Serbophobia is a political accusation of hatred towards Serbs. Serbophobia is hatred towards Serbs, period. Whether some people are unjustifiedly accused of hating Serbs when they really don't is another matter entirely. Nikola 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An it is up to you to prove that I am not an alien reporting from another planet while impersonating an earthling. How is it that when you make a dubious statement I have to prove it is not true. Only sources provided on this article are of a political nature --Dado 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please find a way to gain consensus on how to proceed, and when you are ready, place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you need assistance with the dispute, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you look at these examples, on how to write a concise, NPOV article that exlplains the term:

• Japanophobia - fear or hatred of the Japanese.
• Judeophobia - fear or hatred of Jews.
• Lusophobia - dislike of the Portuguese

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If the subject needs to be expanded, it would rather have an article on Serbian ressentiment, in which these political views can be explored and described. We can then merge any tidbits about the use of the term "Serbophobia" by Serbian nationalists and others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Protected ages ago, no ongoing discussion. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New edits

One of the most known consequences of Serbophobia is a denial of genocide and other war crimes commited over Serbs in Bosnia (1992-1995) and Croatia (1995). Using the Srebrenica massacre and other proofen and non-proofen war crimes media have created an illusion that the Serbs have started those wars, are the aggresors and the only guilty ones.

Says who? Provide proof and sources. This may be the worst kind of denial of genocide that took place in Srebrenica that I don't know where to begin --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the war in Bosnia Bosnian muslims call themselfs Bosniaks so they could convince the world that they are only domestic people of Bosnia. This has created the illusion that Serbs are invading the Bosnia (since Serbia is a neighbour country).

Says who? Provide proof and sources? Beside being a total nonsense it stipulates that most of the world is stupid enough to be fooled by Bosniaks into an illusion?--Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will also add here some comments about the previous talk since it would be stupid to add up there. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New York Times putting «all of Serbia in trial» is not the discusion. Many saw the trial, not just Milosevics, but all trials in Hague as a judging «all of Serbia». One view is that NYTs headline only suggested that Serbophobia does exist. Still don't forget that this article is just an example, Serbophobia and anti-Serbism (my opinion is that those are two different things) exist in all European and North American countries, and in most of the world (among people, press, politicians and other). --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your logic of how you reach a conclusion that something is Serbophobia is an absolute absurdity. An NY Times article may have a poor title but it proves nothing. See above discussions for more information --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia in the North America and Europe had high influence on the outcome of Kosovo war in 1999. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Provide sources and proof.--Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dado sad: Prior to the invation of Iraq about 600 Arabs were arrested in USA as suspects of terrorism. They were held for varied lengths of time (some as long as 3 months) only to have one (1) person charged for violations of immigration law and others released. You are apsolutely right. After 9/11 there was a lot of prejustice toward Arabs. But since the reason was terrorism, there wasn't as much «all of Arabs» prejustice. Still Serbs are no more guilty (even less) then muslims and Croats for the war and war crimes, but from palestina to Afganistan muslims are knowen over terrorism (in Iraq they even terrorise their own people for supporting the goverment controled by the States). --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What a hell are you talking about. What does any of this has to do with your point. --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of Serbia could include of all Republic of Serbia but it doesn't. It includes of of the Serbs as a nation. It's clear what it means, but you can see it differently, still you should keep that one for yourself, and not publish that thought on Wikipedia. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that victimization of Serbs was a well established and documented political doctrine used by the Serbian politician and media in early 90's to cause a rise among Serbs. This victimization began with celebration of 400 year old Battle of Kosovo (where Serbs were defeated by Turks) and ended with identifying Bosniaks as Turks who should be taken revenge on. Serbophobia is just another kind of the same political doctrine yet a very weak one given the obviousness that it serves only to appeal to emotions. To those dim witted it serves as a "scientific" justification of propaganda they have been fed by the politicians. This is evident that in almost 6 months since this article was first created there was 0 scientific proof presented and more serious users like Milosh have given up on this article because it is obviously such a lost cause. --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutral version written by me, Nikola Smolenski, Miloš and also a part written by Dado should remain and any act of deleting parts should be regarded as vandalism.--TheFEARgod 16:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your and Nikola's version is not neutral. Milosh has not contributed to the article as you are claiming it other than made suggestions on this discussion page so it is unlear if he would support your view. I do not subscribe to this version and you now it. You don't have the authority to decide what is vandalism contrary to the rules. --Dado 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

also, persons like Demicx who have not contributed to WRITING in this article shuold not revert any content written by other people.--TheFEARgod 16:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also you do not have the authority to prevent and bully users from expressing their view even in a way where they are simply deciding which version is more appropriate for this subject. --Dado 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Milant, I have been very clear about my position so I would aks you not to simplify it in your justification for pushing agenda that are insulting accusation and outright lies. I have asked repeatedly for you and others to present sources for your claims. The entire section "Examples of Serbophobia" is so bad that I don't see a fix to it other than to remove it completely. Again, this article has passed the Deletion only on the ground that the term can be defined as the political accusation. If you do not stop I will put this article once again for deletion as it is obviously a flame bait and libel risk. --Dado 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I was unaware, whern I first tagged this for AfD, that it had already managed to pass one — the notification of the result was non-standard and buried half-way down the Talk page. It still seem to me that the article's main, if not only, real purpose is to act as a lightning rod for political opinions, hence the interminable edit-warring; therefore, I'm going through with the second AfD. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

This article is nonsense and its aimed to promote a certain political agenda. None hates Serbs as such. There are many people who consider the policies of Serbia and the beliefs of the Serbian elite as outdated and criminal. But that doesn't have to do with Serbs as a people or an ethnic group. I personally think that Serbian history books glorify criminals and crime. Serbian expanssionism is based on anti-humane values. But I don't hate nor fear Serbs as people. Thinking that Hitler was a criminal and that his policies were criminal doesn't one make a 'Germanophobe.' I fully agree tht this article needs to be deleted.

Maybe if you were a serb travelling abroad, going thru different customs, waiting for more than a minute while officers scrutinize your passport and visa and look at you in a certain way (while for others it takes few seconds and no strange looks), maybe if you've been in serbian skin, you would know that this article is not a total nonsense, but there is some thruth to it. Ask serbians how easily they get visas to travel to foreign countries. Why is that the case? Lakinekaki 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. The only problem being that this article doesn't even attempt to mention that. Live Forever 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Attention!! important parts of the text are getting lost! example, the sentence with the word shkija oftenly disappears! check the page history.--TheFEARgod 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. do not delete the picture. It portraits an act of pure serbophobia (killing of Serbs in NDH -equal to Judeophobic sentiment in Germany)--TheFEARgod 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and you are removing a large part of important texts and adding unsubstantiated and unsourced garbage. Picture has nothing to do with the term. It is horrific, it is appaling but it is also an appeal to emotions. Most of all it is what has been proven as fascism and nationalism during NDH. You cannot attribute it to a term Serbophobia when the term or at least the definition of the term itself is disputed. --Dado 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I don't speak Serbian, is the Serbian version [5] biased? --Latinus 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. --Dado 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dado, you're simply provoking and lying now. No need to stoop that low... The Serbian article simply says: Serbophobia is a feeling of animosity or hatred towards Serbs or Serbia. If you think that's biased, then you really are a piece of work. Your entire involvement with this article has been obstructive, and - ironically - Serbophobic. Now of course, you're going to say that I'm a Serbian nationalist and that you're being unfairly accused blah blah blah. --estavisti 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can see on your user page that you are Serbian nationalist. Why are you so nationalistic? A term "serbophopbia" simply does not exist in the English language. Croatian historian 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, what I have repeatedly asked for and what is in line with policies and the way encyclopedic article should be written is that every claim should be supported by facts and sources. What has been written on Serbian wikipedia is false and propagandistic and most of all it lacks sources and factual support. I have said repeatedly that image is horrific as was the image "Srbosjek" that was added before, but they have nothing to do with the concept. On the other hand I find it quite perverse to use such image for what is clearly a political accusation. --Dado 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This has reached absurd levels. I've protected the page against further edit warring; I suggest that editors start discussing the issues like intelligent adults, instead of squabbling like bad-tempered children. I'll keep an eye on things, and unprotect if it looks as though the edit warring is likely to stop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume from the deafening silence that no-one wants the protection to be lifted? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I have stated my arguements and I am open for discussion but I believe some users are only waiting out the period while the article is locked to come back and restart the edit war once it is unlocked again. --Dado 22:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my suspicion; they'll have a long wait, though, as I'm not going to unprotect the article until the issues have been discussed here, and it's clear that edit-warring is not going to restart. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Robotnik

The claim that the term is used only by "serbian nationalists" is not true at all. This is a lame attempt by some ustasha to discredit the article. I suggest this claim be removed. Doctor Robotnik 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations of others as Ustasha makes your arguement less of a good faith attempt to make this article better. --Dado 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited the introductory paragraph to claim that the term is used only by Serbian nationalists, and that it was introduced as part of Serbian "victimization politics". This is a valid argument, but it CANNOT be claimed as a FACT, the way it is right now. There is a CRITICISM section for that, and the criticism section already mentions that some people claim that the term is used for the purpose of nationalism and for "victimization politics". It is inappropriate to mention that in the very FIRST paragraph, and even more innappropriate to present it as a FACT when it is the opinion of only one side. That's what the criticism section is for. The opening paragraph of the previous revision was much more NPOV. Doctor Robotnik 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

"Serbophobia (Serbian, Croatian: србофобиjа, srbofobija), is a political accusation used to allege a sentiment of hostility or hatred towards Serbs, Serbia, or Republika Srpska. The term is used in a non-clinical sense, and is nearly non-existent in the English language. It was introduced in the late 1980s as part of the of Serbian victimization politics led by Dobrica Cosic and Slobodan Milosevic."

I also eliminated term "anti-Serbism" as that can actually be a legitimate theory and should not be muddled with this neologism. Last sentance is properly sourced so it can be used as a fact. It is in fact that the only use of this term can be traced to recent history and primarily by certain levels in Serbian politics.--Dado 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Better, but not quite. The claim that it's a political accusation is only an opinion and thus belongs in the critiism section. The claim that it's part of "victimization politics" (I don't agree there is such a thing as victimization politics in Serbia, at least not to any greater degree than in any other Balkan country) is also something that should only be in the criticism section. Doctor Robotnik 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The term was only used in politics and unlike other phobia's there is no scientific or historical material available that proves Serbophobia as anything other than a political accusations. Also justifying this term with similar terms (such as Francophobia) and drawing illogical parallels still does not define this term on a equal level. Just because others are justified this one is not and needs to bear same burden of proof. Even when the term is used in non political speeches it is placed in quotations as a reference to what some Serbian politicians consider an attack on Serbs or Serbia.

Your belief that there is no or was no victimization politics in Serbia is exactly that, your belief and your POV. The source provided claims otherwise. The source that talks about the victimization politics is quite comprehensive and very important to shed light on this subject from both sides. I'd suggest you read it. You may be right that victimization politics are probably employed in other Balkan regions (Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, reference) but here we are talking about Serbian in particular. There is as much belief that Serbophobia is a matter of political doctrine of victimisation as there are actual uses of the term so placing the term in the context of the Serbian politics at the start of the article is quite justified. --Dado 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is not used only by politicians, it has entered mainstream usage in Serbian and is used by everyone. So your entire argument is moot. It is no more a political accusation than Russophobia or anti-semitism are. Doctor Robotnik 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The authors rights

Sorry, but the authors of this page are completely right about writing this page. This is not a political propaganda, but is a true fact. Read the article carefuly and you will find those facts. Deleting this page is not a humankind act. Aeternus 14:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD - Anti-Bosniak Sentiment

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Bosniak_sentiment. Your comments will be appreciated. Regards, Asterion 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocide

Does someone know about the genocide that was made for albanians by serbs? Watch more documentaries about Kosovo. You can find them in archives of BBC and other mega televisions. Then you will really understand the "Serbophofia" article. Aeternus 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Make an article Albanophobia. --Pockey 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL please don't! Doctor Robotnik 02:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally POV

The term is not a political accusation, any more than terms such as Anti-Semitism are. Neither is it non existant in the English language. i.e. "The Croatian media launched a campaign that pandered to the worst excesses of Croatian Serbophobia." Silber and Little, 1995, p.155. This was quoted in numerous publications, including (off the top of my head) in "The war next door - A study of second track intervention during the war in ex-Yugoslavia" by Judith Large. Serbophobia should be unlocked ASAP, and probably taken to arbitration. It has survived not one, but two votes for deletion, and letting it waste away is a crying shame. --estavisti 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms has a lot of links to -phobia articles which are not written to illustrate their titles, but to explain them. i.e. at Francophobia there is no reference to non-clinical terms, no reference to political accusations, no reference to French nationalists etc. Instead we get (as it should be, more or less):
Francophobia is a consistent hostility toward the government, culture, history, or people of France or the Francophonie. Contemporary prejudice against the French often derives from criticisms from the immediate post-World War II period and the way of life of the artistic and philosophic elite of the time. Although those prejudices are widespread today, Francophobia has existed for centuries and adopted very different forms.
The article on Serbophobia should be developed with strong reference to other -phobia articles, to avoid getting into a cul-de-suc, such as the one we're in now. --estavisti 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the fact that such an approach has proved to be impossible for the polarised editors that the article is unprotected. Note that articles can't be taken to arbitration — that's for editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlock this

I dont see the reason for locking of the article. Any text can be improved only by revision. So, forget about edit wars, about who-did-what-to-whom & try to compose a rational & balanced article. Mir Harven 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the reason can be obscure. The article was the subject of constant edit-warring. The parties concerned seem content to spar with one another on this page, with no interest in reaching any sort of consensus. As has been suggested above, they may well be tring to wait out the enforced cease-fire. Until there's some sign here that the edit-warring won't start immediately the protection is lifted, though, what grounds are there for lifting it? If there were any sign that the editors were prepared to behave rationally and in a well-balanced way, in order to produce a rational and well-balanced article, the protection would be lifted immediately. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm...yes, I see your point (I haven't followed the debate/edit war). Mir Harven 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, having said all that, let's give it a try. I'll make clear now that if there's any edit-warring, the protection will be slapped back again without warning. That will mean that the article is locked in a state that many editors will hate. If they don't want to risk that, then they should try to edit sensibly, maturely, and after reaching consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm adding the template for this:

Rebecca West, a noted and consistent admirer of the Serbs

Among other things... - FrancisTyers 11:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link to West's stands towards Serbs although I find the statement a bit strange anyway so if you want to remove it I support it.--Dado 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be just as well to include an example of someone who supports the Serb cause and criticizes claims of Serbophobia, which in effect she is. Septentrionalis 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What are "other things"? --Dado 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a compromise version

I tried to make a compromise, NPOV version. I hope everybody is sensible and tries to stop the edit war and prevent the page being protected again in a terrible POV form, as Mel Elitis threatened it would be. I have included everything that seemed reasonable from the two earlier versions, and tried to make the total impression neutral.

Sorry I didn't place the proposed text on the talk page first, but I was afraid it would take more time for people to react, and the reaction might come too late. I hope you suggest how this version can be improved, instead of just reverting to one of the old versions.

Some things that I did:

• changed the introduction to something more NPOV, so that it doesn't say categorically that the critics of the concept are right, as in the non-Serbian version, or that they aren't, as in the Serbian version. Also added a source for the statement in the non-Servian version that previously lacked one (the internet source that had been provided before didn't refer to Serbophobia as such).
• rearranged everything, so that 1. examples, 2. concrete instances of use and 3. history are differentiated from one another. I found the previous situation totally unorganized and confusing. The examples are arranged in an order starting with moderate, abstract things and ending with concrete gossip-like stuff.
• fixed some (not all) of the grammar and the spelling.
• Added some details and clarifications.
• Removed the revolting image that doesn't add any info.
• Placed more citation tags.

I think that, if you accept that, everybody should be expected to provide sources for the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› -tagged things within a week or two, or else the statements in question should be moved to the talk page.

Well, does anybody agree/disagree with what I've done? --85.187.44.131 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clumsy

This article is a mess. The very term is a variant of other negative terms regarding Serbs (as I recall, I've read "srbožder" in "Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika", JAZU/HAZU, referring to- I'm not sure- Vuk's German explanation as "Serbenfresser" in the 1852. dictionary). So, it's nothing new & not a big deal at all. Anytime a nation makes appearance on the history stage, someone will bi pissed. Serbophobia, as a lemma, is just a version of some of these older designations (again, I've read this exact term somewhere in Matoš's essays dated ca. 1910.). So, I don't see any problem with the name itself. As for the content, let the Serbs catalog their grievances & they will be commented upon and given a more objective general presentation. Frankly-I don't see the reason for such a fuss. Mir Harven 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some outsider's ideas

Demonisation of Serbs/Serbophobia in the popular press: Well, I still remember how the tabloids were happy to blame the Serbs when Jill Dando was killed. The UK tabloid headlines at the time read: "Was it a Serb who killed Jill Dando?", "Serb Assasin Did It", ... The ensuing articles went on to say there were no leads whatsoever at that point. From which The Sun concluded "oh well, must have been a Serb then". Mark Steel, in The Independent, wrote about this a while ago. Prof. Phillip Hammond's book Degraded Capability also covers the subject. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti's edits

Serbophobia is regarded, among many if not all neutral historians, as a nationalist invention, at least originally. The fact that it isn't mentioned in English dictionaries shouldn't be removed either.

Also, renaming it was a bad idea. The entire article is based on the TERM Serbophobia. Right now, the contents of the article have little to do with its title. Very bad indeed, to say the least. --85.187.44.131 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti hasn't changed the contents in accordance with the new title. And he shouldn't have changed the title without preliminary discussion in the first place. --85.187.44.131 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. as for the actual change, nobody had been complaining about the "clinical condition" for some time now. And "anti-Serbism" gives 65 google hits, as opposed to 1,470 for "Serbophobia". --Anonymous44 14:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (yes, I'm the same guy)

Just looking at this my question would be on the sence, or lack of, in the above statement: "Serbophobia is regarded, among many if not all neutral historians, as a nationalist invention, at least originally. The fact that it isn't mentioned in English dictionaries shouldn't be removed either."

this is ahisotric. There was a documetned genocide of the Serbs in this century, some 400,000 to 600,000 according to Holocaust and genocide scholars in Israel. Its roots were most certainly Serbophobic. The cause of genocide of half a million people based on their Serbian ethnicty is not an "nationalist invention."72.75.42.6 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

SrbIzLike's edits

The edits were unsourced. Besides that, I think they should go to the history and not to the examples section. --85.187.44.131 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

References

I have removed the Spanish article, as though the word is mentioned, the rest of the text does not back the ideas expressed in the wikipedia article. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be renamed

The term is actually 'Serbiphobia', not 'Serbophobia'. - (202.180.98.82 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

POV dispute

Can those who dispute something please make their specific concerns known here, so that they can be discussed? If no one comes forward, the POV tag will be removed in a week's time. --estavisti 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people who assert that Serbophobia doesn't exist, and that the term is used as a political tool by Serbs to pin the blame on others for their own wrongdoings. and so on. Nikola 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Па среди то онда. Ово је ту због тога што неки Бошњаци су се жалили да чланак је POV, у фазону "нико не мрзи те јебене ћетнике, србофобија не постоји". --estavisti 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"which reminded Serbs" or "The sticking of these objects into anus had a symbolic purpose to remind Serbs to the time of Ottoman rule when many Serbs were executed by being impaled." are interpretations of the events and this is POV.Bendeguz 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV to include interpretation, as long as they're clearly labelled as such? --estavisti 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it was Panonian's or your (some people) interpretation and nothing else. And what you mean, is Kurir a serious newspaper? And do not cheat with quotations. Bendeguz 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well the media's interpretation is relevant here. What do you mean by "do not cheat with quotations"? Maybe you didn't notice the title of the article is "Kolac"? Do you know what "nabijanje na kolac" is? Everything is sourced, and purposely deleting sourced statements is considered vandalism. Unless you have something new to say here, please don't revert again. --estavisti 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

renaming article "anti-Serbian sentiment" or similar

Since "Serbophobia" appears to be a rather uncommon word as such I suggest renaming the article to something along the lines of "Anti-Serbian sentiment" (with the appropriate redirects, including Serbophobia, of course). Pretending that there is a commonly used word in teh English language called "Serbophobia" is, to me, a bit silly. Wikipedia shouldn't be about inventing words.Osli73 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Most of the external articles citing “Serbophobia” (including the ones in the “External links” section) are or in Serbo-Croatian or in Serbian/South Slavic sites written in English. Serbophobia in sites out of this two conditions are somehow rare. May the titles “Anti-Serbian sentiment” or “Anti-Serbism” could be more pertinent, since there’s no “Croatophobia”(note: there is a redirect to the article Anti-Croatian sentiment), “Bosniakphobia” (note: there is a redirect to the article Anti-Bosniak sentiment), “Montenegrinphobia”, “Kosovarphobia”, “Macedoniaphobia” or “Sloveniophobia” or something like that here in Wikipedia.--MaGioZal 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one else has any comments by the end of the weekend, maybe we should go ahead and change i`t?Osli73 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--MaGioZal 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the discussion on the recent AfD it seems that the consensus among editors was that Serbophobia was a well established term outside of Wikipedia. The article itself cites usage before WWI as well. // Laughing Man 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really neutral on this, but both of the terms should be in the heading part. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Section: "Forms and examples of alleged Serbophobia" needs cited sources

This section needs cited sources for each example - otherwise it looks like original research. Each verifiable reliable source needs to contain the allegation of Serbophobia. SmithBlue 07:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) SmithBlue 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I of course agree, but you deleted some examples which were cited - for example the NYT article, and a few examples in Vojvodina section. Nikola 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is needed in a citation is the exact source for the info - Title of article, writer, publication, date, page number for a newspaper for example. More on what is required for a citation is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Basically a reader of the encyclopedia needs to be able to go to a library or on the web and check any citation. As far as I could see what I deleted didnt have full citations. If I was mistaken please show me. If you get citations for the deleted info please replace it, with the citations, or point it out to me and I'll cite it. SmithBlue 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats the problem here?

Every group feels discriminated against, even the rich see being stolen from and being forced to pay lots of tax and having to follow the same law as poor people as forms of discrimination. And then every other group I can think of IS discriminated against by some group. What I would like to see here is a fully referenced article that clearly documents the subject at hand. SmithBlue 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. Bosniak 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a great example of Serbophobia. - King Ivan 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Ivan can plainly say on his user page that he admires Ante Gotovina because he is defender of Croatia's independence from bloodthirsty Serbs and that nobody who is not a Serb would even perceive it as a problem is an even better example. Nikola 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Content of this article important?

Is having relevant descriptive sourced content in this article important to any of the editors here? If so; there is work to be done. This article can not focus mainly on acts against Serbians - only when notable sources claim the action was evoked or made easier by anti-Serb feeling can they be considered for inclusion in a section like "Examples of actions perceived as anti-Serb." And then just enough examples to show the range are necessary. See Antisemitism for an example.

The meanings, origins, history of the term seem well covered. Present unique features of Serbophobia. Surely more notable people have written discrimantory material about "the Serbs"? This is the stuff that needs to go into this article (again see Antisemitism). Please source more material explicitly describing the long term efffects of Serbophobia on Serbs and the discriminators.

A section about the actions that Serbophobia has evoked or made easier would give some examples of Serbophobic actions where this material meets a very heavy demand of proof that the action was inspired or mader easier by Serbophobia. An accusation that Serbophobia was the cause is not enough for this section - a verifiable reputable sourced self-proclamation, or similar, by the perpetrator would be necessary. Something like, "We ..., cause they were Serbs" SmithBlue 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, there is the study on The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija which polled Serbs who left Kosovo in 70s and 80s on their reasons. What do you think about it? Nikola 17:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nicola, is the website reputable? If yes, then the material in the report could be quoted here, (with references). The reasons why Serbs left Kosovo could go in a section about Serbian perception of discrimination/etc and Serbian responses. SmithBlue 09:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured that Project Rastko is a reliable website, and that the study on the site is equal to the one actually printed. The question is, of course, if Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is reputable... Nikola 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NYT article and another article claiming, "Its discrimination" needed

For the NYT article to be included we'd like the cite for the article and then we definately need a cited (reputable, verifiable) source describing the NYT article as anti-Serb. That you and I think the article's title is anti-Serb does not count for the encyclopedia. So (? most) points raised in the article need a (reputable, verifiable, notable) source that states, something like, "Such and such is anti-Serb discrimination" or "Serbs have these very negative qualities: ...." or, "We treated them very badly and ..., because they were Serbs." If you have any statements/questions about this requirement lets discuss them. SmithBlue 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be deleted - it is well documented

In this particular case, I believe I can find a reference, for example [6] describes the title as "anti-Serbian". But I think you are setting the bar a bit too high - don't you think that a song like "Hang Serbs on willows" or desacration of Serbian cemmeteries is an anti-Serb act even if we can't find anyone who explicitly describes it so? Nikola 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If we have cites for whats included there is one less criticism that can be made about this article. And yes "Hang Serbs on willows" is clearly discrimination - as long as we can show its being sung by another group. My guess is that there is quite enough material for this article with cites that we dont need uncited material. Have googled for another source critical of NYT headline - can we use mainstream Serb newspapers here? And can you get such a citation? Am uncertain of reliability of IAC. “Milosevic is accused, but all of Serbia is on trial” is, to me, clearly anti-Serb but others might say "not" - why give them any opening when with a cite we put the matter beyond question? SmithBlue 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find yet another reference about the NYT article, though I believe that the one I found already is good enough. Regarding "Hang Serbs on willows", references of the song being sung or evoked are very easy to find. Nikola 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if it is (NYT - IAC cite) good enough - accusing groups with communist ties of bias is often quite succesful even if not true - if someone can find a bullet-proof cite that would be good. In section;"An overview of anti-Serbian sentiment in history" has any one got references for; "After the war, there were significant ethnic tensions in the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1945), which was dominated by the Serbian nation." ? SmithBlue 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

POv problems

People keep bringing up "POV problems" in every AfD, so tell us what they are so that we can fix them.--Еstavisti 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For me the name of this article may be a problem. Anti-Serb discrimination seems a better description, with clear examples cited already. "Serbophobia" while having overlap with "anti-Serb discrimination" also seems to be presented by some as Serbian establishment propaganda. Claiming discrimination and hatred by the the enemy is very common - just in this case the word perhaps used for propaganda is fairly uncommon in English still. An article named anti-Serb discrimination or something along those line would include a section on "Serbophobia" and its history and uses. SmithBlue 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As the List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms shows, some terms are constructed with phobia, some with anti. Phobia implies fear, anti implies opposition. For known and unknown reasons, different nations' sentiments have different word compositions. In case of Serbs, my personal experience tells me that phobia is more appropriate. In case of Jews, anti is more appropriate. Lakinekaki 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just language. Jewophobia isn't a word, and Anti-Semitism is. Serbophobia is a word, and Anti-Serbianism isn't. The end.--Еstavisti 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's just language" may be part of it - "anti-Serbism" sounds like a serious sensible English word to my ears. "Serbophobia", hmmm ..., to my ear sounds a bit too much like a fear of surfers, kitchen sponges, mops or pimples. Which is not to deny the seriousness of the construct. And its not to say that we should change the title because of this - just that to some native English speakers the word sound is "not constructed in the normal manner" for an English word. SmithBlue 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion requests?

What is the point of so many deletion requests. 2 positive and 2 neutral decisions; hopefully editors will stop proposing this article for deletion as it obviously has no effect. Even if it by chance gets deleted, surely there are enough editors that will ask for un-deletion of the article. Lakinekaki 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could editors specify which wikipedia policy is not meet by this article? Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Lakinekaki 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

who uses "Serbophobia"/"anti-Serbism"?

The introduction paragraph states, "Serbophobia ..., also called anti-Serbism, is a term or political accusation sometimes used by Serbian nationalists..." Why does this article limit use of these terms to Serb nationalists? According to 1st paragraph no-one else uses it. SmithBlue 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Grounds for Serbophobia

Could we include these reasons as to why some people dislike serbs in the modern era.... Something about the kosovan war or the bosnian war. The Srebrenica massacre? Why does serbophobia exist? I see nothing in this article to suggest as to the reasons it exists as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.7.94 (talk • contribs) 03:31, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Serbian ultranationalist bias of this article needs change!

Promotion of nationalism and ethnic cleansing ideals should not be the policy of Wikipedia!

The term serbophobia is an equivalent to the Nazi propaganda before and during WWII. The Nazis claimed that the whole world is conspired against the Germans anything German. Serbian ultranationalists similarly claim that Serbs are being persecuted and conspired against by everyone around them....which is complete non-sense. This term has been used as propaganda to help shape public opinion for attacks against Croatia and Bosnia in the early 1990s as well as for the genocide against Kosovar Albanians.

I wander how long this type of biased propaganda article would be kept up on Wikipedia, if it for example refered to the "victimization of Germans" before the WWII and trying to shift the blame for historic events on victims such as the Jews? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lusich (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The use of this word is not widespread in either Serbian or English languages. It's more objective, more fair, and more accurate to define it as Anti-Serb Sentiment. Both Serbophobia and Bosniakophobia were politicized (invented) words that are not widely used in any language and should not be used in wikipedia, I agree. Bosniak 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong, the word is used both in Serbian and English. Unlike Bosniakophobia, a word which no one uses. Nikola 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Serbophobia

The use of this word is not widespread in either Serbian or English languages. It's more objective, more fair, and more accurate to define it as Anti-Serb Sentiment. Both Serbophobia and Bosniakophobia were politicized (invented) words that are not widely used in any language and should not be used in wikipedia, I agree. Bosniak 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But 1) please use WP:RM rather than acting unilaterally and 2) With your edits and move, much of the text doesn't make sense, e.g. "the term is used by Krleza". Duja► 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect, and you have been informed of this before. The term "Serbophobia" is used, for example, in academic literature; a Google Scholar search for the term yields 24 papers (as compared with only 10 for "anti-Serb sentiment" and none for "Bosniakophobia"). —Psychonaut 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question.

Is this serbophobia or something else: In Earth album ([7]) provided with the courtesy of Google maps and Flickr, Serbia and Montenegro are for some reason missing.

Note that I could not find any other European country missing, nor any randomly chosen world country missing. I could find even countries as small as Andora and Vatican. Note also that there is a name Serbia in the Google map, as well as pictures from Serbia in Flickr, but combined code excludes it. Comments?...Lakinekaki 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried e-mailing the Earth Album and pointing the mistake out of them, instead of reaching your own conclusions that it was an instance of Serbophobia? This is an encyclopedia, y'know. Duja► 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'know! I just noticed the same thing in some travel guides several years ago, when all countries around serbia had descriptions while serbia was blanked on the map and had no description in the guide! Thanks for suggestion, I will contact Earth Album, and also one other organization (that may do some original research on the topic which I may be able to quote ;o) Lakinekaki 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

“…or Republika Srpska.”

Where’s the sources to this affirmation at the first paragraph? -- MaGioZal

False link!

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyorders/ibhy_iorder_19971217.html

This is a false link Bosnia has never been convicted 4 genocide! Delete this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Thug (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Albanophobia

Article on Albanophobia states that Albanophobia is widespread in Serbia[1] [2], Greece[3] and FYROM[4]. I can find references of similar quality in regard to spread of serbophobia, should this be in the article? Nikola 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to misquote them as well. The English language sources which purportedly affirm that Albanophobia is "widespread" in Greece and FYROM say nothing of the sort (I can't read the Serbian ones).--Domitius 13:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction text

Hi, there's been some mild edit warring on the text to be used in the intro. Since the intro is all most people end up reading, the wording is important. I have a couple of issues with the current (the more extensive one, that is) which I think would need to be improved/changed:

1. calling a term "invented" is wrong since we don't know who 'invented' it or when. It is also slightly POV since it implies that it is an artificial word. I think it would be better to say that the word "became increasingly popular" or something like that.
2. I'm not too keen on the generalized characterization of the term. Imagine writing that "anti-Semitism" is "invented" and used as a prism through which to judge all negative events for Jews and used to justify aggressive Israeli policies! Basically, what I'm getting at here is that the current description implies that Serbophobia is just a made up word used for victimization. This may be true, or not, but the intro should be as neutral as possible and refrain from characterizing the word. This is better done in the history subsection.
3. The intro only uses one source, which isn't ideal.

Instead, I propose the following text:

Serbophobia is a term used to describe a sentiment of hostility or hatred towards Serbs or Serbia. The term was popularized by the the so-called Memorandum published by the Serbian Academy of Science in xxx.

The rest could be put in the history section. Finally, I think the article should focus on the term Serbophobia rather than (alleged) expressions of it. If that is possible / makes sense. CheersOsli73 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, some sources which could be used are. Please add your own. CheersOsli73 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Victim Chic? The Rhetoric of victimhood, by Michael Ovey, Cambridge Papers, Volume 15 no 1, March 2006 [8]
2. Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis, chapter on The Role of Serbian Ressentiment, by Vesna Pesic, United States Institute of Peace, April 1996 | Peaceworks No. 8 [9]
3. Letter to the editor by William Dorich, published in Published in The American Srbobran, May 17 1999 [10][11]
4. Speech by William Dorich before members of the House of Representatives, April 1 2000, available on Center for Peace in the Balkans website[12]

Good point with 'popularised' vs. 'invented'. The term was not invented, but the meaning was invented and the term popularised. The intro uses two sources, which isn't ideal, but on the other hand every sentence is sourced. Serbophobia is nothing like anti-Semitism, so this is not a good analogy. - Francis Tyers · 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Francis, I'm not suggesting Serbophobia is like anti-Semitism, I was simply trying to illustrate that it doesn't feel entirely NPOV to present it as a cover for nationalism and Milosevic-style policies. I realize that it's a thoroughly politicized term, but that doesn't mean that the article introduction should trash it. Again, I think it would be better to say what it means and that it was popularized by so and so and then, if necessary, go on to describe the role/purpose which some academics (?) feel that the term has come to be used in/for. See my point? Otherwise, it feels as if the article is going to be an edit war battle ground forever. In the end, it might be anyway, but, let's at least do our best to produce as NPOV an article as possible to reduce it to a minimum. CheersOsli73 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is used as a cover for nationalism. The term is not used for the meaning outside the circle of nationalist Serbs and their sympathisers. We do not write articles from the point-of-view of the people who subscribe to them. - Francis Tyers · 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article survived the AfD because it was radically changed (by me). If it stops being radically changed, it should be AfD'd again. I will not AfD it in its current state, but I would welcome someone else doing so. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That the term is used as a cover for nationalism is an opinion of some people. There are other people who don't think so, first of all, most of those who use the term. Perhaps in this article we could describe points of view of both. We could call that, say, neutral point of view! Nikola 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Francis, some comments:

1. I voted for this article (as well as all the other anti-x articles mentioned) to be deleted in the recent AfD process. Given that Serbophobia is more of a word than an established concept and all of the nationalist mud-slinging going on in Balkan-related articles I felt we should delete it.
2. I'm not sure why it survived. I'd support another try though I'm not sure it's worth it given that the last one was concluded so recently.
3. However, I don't think the recent AfD vote is a valid reason for stopping editing the article.
4. I realize you and I probably have different ideas about what the article should say and how it should be structured. However, I think that if we can agree on some general principles it shouldn't be so difficult.
5. I agree that in some cases the term is used as a cover for nationalism. However, others obviously don't think so. My point is that it's not for us to make that judgement (see WP:OR). Instead, we should reflect what others say and if it's controversial try to portray both sides (see WP:NPOV)
6. So, I think we shouldn't generally characterize the term in the intro but rather in a subsection where we say that "During the conflicts in former Yugoslavia the term has been used by some to describe a perceived automatic bias against Serbs and Serbia by many Western commentators and politicians... On the other hand, some, primarily Western, commentators believe that the term has come to be used as...". That should be fairly NPOV in my mind.

Happy MidsummerOsli73 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion, or else I'd join it earlier.

About the intro, there is one thing which really can't be there, and that is claiming that serbophobia is somehow "invented" or popularised or whatever. Serbophobia is hatred toward Serbs. The end. Whether someone sometimes claimed that the hatred existed when it in fact didn't, is completely orthogonal to this. Even if nobody in the world ever hated Serbs, serbophobia still remains (a theoretical concept of) hatred towards Serbs. Opinions that serbophobia doesn't in fact exist were in Criticism section, and I don't see why wouldn't they stay there.

I also don't understand why is Francis deleting huge parts of the (relatively small) article. Why deleting use of term by Krleza, instances of Serbophobia, Bennet's criticism, or use in various languages? All of it is sourced and relevant.

Finally, I'd like to say that I have managed to obtain that book "Serbophobia and its sources". And, I could use it to expand the article (one of the points stated in the VfD was that the article wasn't improved). But, frankly, I am afraid of the possible consequences so I am not sure if I should do it. Nikola 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, it's becoming quite clear that the core of the matter seems to be whether Serbophobia is a "cover for nationalism" (you get the drift) or not. My very strong view on this is that this is an obvious Point of View and should be expressed as such. It is not for the editors of the article to make our own judgement on this. However, I have no problem with the article saying that certain people see it as a cover for nationalism etc. and then give examples of their comments. Your comments are welcome (rather than edit wars). CheersOsli73 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that serbophobia can not be a cover for nationalism. Serbophobia can be used as a cover for nationalism, but that is another thing entirely. Nikola 07:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, my point exactly. The article should just say that Serbophobia means xxx and then, maybe, go on to say how different people have interpreted it. Surely, that must be the most NPOV way of presenting the issue. However, I would still prefer if the article was deleted alltogether. However, if that's not happening, then at least the article should be NPOV and not pretend as if Serbophobia is more of an established term than it actually is (which is not very much). Cheers Osli73 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear all, as I've written before, I'd prefer to delete this article and would be glad to vote for a delete in a renewed AfD process. However, in the meantime, I think the article should at least not be POV. Here's a suggestion of for a text (posted in reply to Francis' suggestion on my talk page):

Serbophobia refers to a fear, hatred or jealousy of Serbs or Serbia.

Hatred toward Serbs is a dominant theme in the writings of many Serbian intellectuals. This theme in Serbian ressentiment contends that in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) the Serbian republic had to endure "the unequal and humiliating position of the Serbian people in the present-day Yugoslavia under the rule of an anti-Serb coalition, especially of `Serbophobia,' which in the last decades has grabbed wide layers of Slovenian, Croatian, Albanian peoples, and some parts of the Macedonian intelligentsia and Moslems. . . . The Albanian national minority for longer than two decades from its motherland hounds the most populous Yugoslav people." The Serbian nation is "surrounded by hatred, which made its peace more tormenting than the war." The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts also contributed by organizing a conference on the Croatian war memorial at Jasenovac, once more heating up the unavoidable theme of the Croatian genocide of the Serbs; an accompanying tract accused Croatia of assimilating Serbs living in the republic. The Serbian Writers Association also organized a meeting in 1989 with the theme of "Serbophobia," where Croatian genocide was once again featured prominently.[13]

During the 1990s the term has also come to be applied to 'Western' criticism of Serbia's role in the conflict the former Yugoslavia.[14]

According to some commentators, the belief in Serbophobia is an ingridient in Serbian victimization and nationalism.[15]

The references would have to be fixed up, but, how about it? CheersOsli73 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is better than the misleading lead, but is also wrong. For one, serbophobia is not a dominant theme in the writings of many Serbian intellectuals. Nikola 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Osli, I have to agree with Nikola regarding the lead, and although I really appriciate the effort, I feel it still needs some work as it is misleading, is loaded with weasel words, and implies that the term is "invented" by someone. // laughing man 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Laughing Man and Nikola, upon readng the intro I wrote again, I guess I agree with your comments since. I was trying to strike a balance between the differing versions.Cheers Osli73 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is neologism, and it was deleted few times already!

Please delete this neologism. Why was Serpophobia restored? Let's delete all of these neologisms and focus on real articles. Let's stop politics. We need to put a stop to this crap (as you called it), and move forward! Who is FOR and who is AGAINST? Bosniak 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mu. Who wants to discuss this matter calmly and rationally instead of excitedly offering up false dichotomies? —Psychonaut 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls look at the suggestions above. CheersOsli73 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Look if Lusophobia has an article why sebophobia should not have one.Lord feanor 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Versions

I know that there will be users which will not agree with me but version of User:Francis Tyers is better of today version. This version is not having even POV tag ?? If we look article Anti-Americanism we will see that many words are used about question why, what is source of this feeling ? In this version of article nothing is writen about that !! I will need to change that in near future.. Examples of this change are: "First known instance of Serbophobia has been born after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria has been killed by Serbian terrorist organization. After creation of Yugoslavia Serbophobia feelings will raise between Croats because of king Alexander terror ..." Like in others articles in this all my statement will be confirmed by internet sources so they will be out of suspicion." CheersRjecina 2:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple speaking today version of this article is not neutral or honest. Rjecina 4:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

King Alexander did not terrorize. He abolished all the political parties and proclaimed himself the only head of the state but he did not terrorize Croats. --George D. Božović 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Let as be clear. In my thinking Croats and Serbs are 1 nation separated by church. Only chance for Yugoslavia has been abolishing of church and creating 1 Yugoslav nation so king Alexander thinking has been OK. Now when this is clear few words about Alexander and terror on Croats. Source for that are this [16] [17]

In the end if we will be honest there is no need for sources. 1 Croatian leader has been killed shortly before Alexander has taken power and his successor has finished in prison. There is no need to say anything other. Rjecina 6:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Todays version is incorect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

International Court of Justice, iBHY 17 December 1997, material

On closer reading of the cite I now see that this material consists of claims put forward by Serbia but later ruled inadmissable to the proceedingsby the court. If the claims are to be included here they will need to be expressed in very diffrerent ways. The claims were not recognised as truthful (or untruthful) by the court - the court rather said that the court could not consider them. If other sources can be found ... At present this material can be best expressed as claims by Serbia, not a finding of ICJ. My error, in large part, here. SmithBlue (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR - "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." There is no consensus to include this material in the present form. Two editors (myself SmithBlue and 80.65.164.10) agree that the source (ICJ document) does not show a finding or ruling by the court that any of the Serbian claims occured. At present we are misleading readers. SmithBlue (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

shkije

(the same word has been used by Croats)

I'm a Croat and i never heard of this word in my life?!?!?!

Shkije does not mean subhuman, and this is not an Albanian word.

Maybe it is connected to the word slav /slave or most likely sclavus. The word shkja is a variation of shkije.

Keep it Fake (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shkije or shkllav doesn´t mean subhuman, its an old Albanian word for slavic and similar to Latin Sclavus. Recently the word has been used derogatory against Serbs but only as a contrary to word shiptar that many Serbs use to offend Albanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.156.173 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

VLACH?????????

Hi. You didn't understand and I must explain it to you. The term Vlach indeed is an ethnic term in Eastern Serbia and it refers to Romance population. But historically, in medieval Serbia the word "vlach" had the meaning of peasant, shepherd and nomadic class also. With the arrival of Turks, the term "vlach" was used as a derogatory term for Christians, and it was not derogatory because of any prejudice about the people of Vlachs, but because of the context in which the term was used. Domestic Muslims, when trying to present Christians as a sort of sub-humans used the term in its meaning of peasant, beggar or a wild man in such phrases as: 'Dirty vlach', 'Vlach bastard', 'Filthy vlach'. Even today, among Muslim Bosniaks there are people who refer to Serbs this way.

In modern times, the term was used in Croatia where certain chauvinistic circles denied Serbs their national rights and proclaimed them not Serbian, but Vlach people who do not deserve any Serbian national rights, but instead are supposed to meld into Croatian nation or leave the country and move to Serbia. Henceforward, the term 'vlach' in Croatia IS an insult, as it refers to uncultured, non refined person from the mountainous countryland. So, all people living on the islands call their fellow countrymen on the coast 'vlachs', as those same people of the shore call those living in the mountains 'vlachs'. I understand your anger, but you must see that here the term 'vlach' is not the name of Vlach people, but the name under which Serbs were denied their rights, killed and persecuted. But I do not understand your anger with Serbs and Serbia, since it was for Bosniaks and Croats who made the term 'vlach' derogatory, and not the Serbs. To Serbs, it is derogatory only because it is used to deny Serbian human rights. Among Serbs, Vlachs are viewed as our friends and brothers. And, if I may remind you, in all history all that binds Serbs and Romanians/Vlachs/Aromanians is friendship, kinship and brotherhood. You should be angry with those who think Vlachs are to be killed and expelled from their countries, and who under that premise named Serbs vlachs. 93.86.72.173 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK! Thank you guys for explaining this to me. I apologise; I wrote what i wrote while i was angry at the shock of what i perceived was Serb shame of being called "Vlach". I have nothing against Serbs, on the contrary, i support the Serbs on many issues, especially the Kosovo one. 89.35.62.12 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some sources for the first part of your argument, 93.86.72.173? I really would appreciate it. --Noirceuil (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Miladin Kovacevic

If you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research. WP:NOR PRODUCER (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

I have to bring into question the reliability of most of the quoted sources on this page. While the article does address an important issue, some of the citations border on the ludicrous. One of the claims involves Joe Biden referring to Serbs as "...a bunch of illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists". One of the 'citations' given, Biden calls Serbs illiterate degenerates, is for an article which specifically states:

Biden dolazi u Srbiju, a tabloidi podsjećaju na izjavu: "Srbi su nepismeni degenerici i koljači"

Translated (translation mine):

Biden coming to Serbia, tabloids reminding [people] of proclamation: "Serbs are illiterate degenerates and butchers"

The reliable source in this case specifically states the the quote is from a tabloid. A number of other references are equally suspicious. It's statements in articles like these that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole, and specifically cast doubt on the (in my opinion) very real problem of Serbophobia.

--Baggend (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbophobia a reaction to Serb Aggression

Not mentioned anywhere is that anti-Serb sentiment is a reaction neighbours of Serbia have because of Serb aggression and the aspirations many Serbs have for a "Greater Serbia". Throughout history, nations that show a behaviour towards imperialism tend to not make many friends. The thinking of the Serb is that Albanians are living on occupied land, Croats are "Catholicized" Serbs, Bonsniaks are "Islamified" Serbs, Hungarians are "Magyarized" Serbs, Austrians are "Germaized" Serbs.... if Martians exist, they are likely "Martianized" Serbs. You will note, ALL the former Yugoslav republics except Serbia declared independence from Yugoslavia - they all could not stand being mistreated by Serbs. It wasn't Serbia trying breakaway. If they were treated as bad as Serbs say, does this make any sense?

To have a topic like this on Wiki without any historical context is irresponsible. Serbs were occupied by Turks for centuries and they were brutalized. After occupation, a sense of nationalism became ingrained in their culture so that they would never again be dominated the way they were. This culminated in the creation of Yugoslavia which quickly became an instrument for a Greater Serbia (Croat and Bosniak politicians were censored and murdered in the original Yugoslav Kingdom). Tito brought some balance to the country, but after he died, it once again became a Serbian vehicle for control. This is where "Serbophobia" comes from. You can't expect to treat neighbours with disrespect and not think there will be a reaction.

So if there is going to be a wiki page on "Serbophobia", then it should coincide with a page on the history of Serb aggression.207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

References need to be checked....

I didn't check them all, but reference 41 is now defunct and does not go to the article in question. Reference 42 goes to a blog/opinion website. Those are the only 2 I checked... it makes me wonder what I would find if I bothered to check them all. Pretty shoddy work.154.5.223.29 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What the heck

I was writing an explanation why I edited this article. In fact, I was still in the middle of editing this article-to make this article more neutral. Sorry, if I am not the Speedy Gonzales. Sorry, if my slow, shaking hands (not my own choice) bother you. I tried to remove some unsourced or/and biased claims, and remove some biased sources (I was not vandalising, there were other sources, supporting the claim written in this article). I was removing and some totally unrelated and messed up parts of this article. Some parts of this article seemed like Serbian ultra-nationalistic rant. This article is yet again, very biased, and seems to show all people from Serbia-surrounding countries as as nazi-genocidal lunatics. That was the reason of my edit. In fact, there were less than 20 SECONDS since my edit. THE PERSONS DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO LOOK AT MY CHANGES?!?! Or was it because of a non-Serbian IP??!?!? I am really wondering if some people on wikipedia have a life at all... (Why I am even trying?) Every time I try to edit an article some butt-hurt wikipedia tough-guy reverses my edit. I didn't even vandalise the page. SERIOUSLY! Is 10 minutes of waiting too long for you?!!?! Remember why wikipedia is LAUGHED by everyone and banned by some schools. It's becoming the internet-dump trash, not worthy of reading and researching. I tried to contribute to wikipedia. Since my english is not perfect, I was not writing articles, I was simply trying to help, expand, argue... FACT:This site is run by ultra-butt-hurt-nationalist who are so butt-hurt when someone try to edit their so called perfect article. In the end, it seems my antivirus is going to block this site forever. My co-workers and friends have already done it. Good bye, and thank you for reading my rant which was no different than this article. Here, I have sources for my claims :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrites

EDIT: Someone is quick to revert my changes, obviously as an attempt to annoy people, but the very same person is slow to respond. Oh, congratulations. I assume that editor is not some angry, ultra nationalist? So, I am sorry for that accusation. But why all wikipedia editors, LOVE to annoy people? WHY?!?! --93.138.235.89 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Per talk in Persecution of Serbs, an article that is completely POV as of now, I propose that the contents of it be merged into Serbophobia. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree --Vinie007 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree We don't need two articles which overlap. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree I agree. There is no need for two articles, since the so called "serpophobia" is an invented term propagated by Serbian propagandists on the internet. Merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.172.92 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2010

Needs Cleanup (Serbian POV)

The article needs cleanup. It's Serbian POV. I thought this is wikipedia and should be objective. I guess I was wrong. Go back and re-read the article, it looks like Slobodan Milosevic wrote it himself. It's Serbian victimhood-playing and blaming others for anti-Serb bias because others correctly criticize Serbs for 99% war crimes in the Balkans.Bosniak (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like Bosniak said....I agree with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.146.117 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbophobia in action! --Noirceuil (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbs are responsible for 99% of war crimes which are covered in western media. Reality is a bit different. Vlayco (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Or more accurate Noirceuil, ultra nationalist, extreme right Serbs with their conspiracy theories, and attempts to get the simpathy of the whole world in action. I don't remember any other nation had so many articles about the discrimination in Wikipedia. It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.173 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More serbophobia in action! --Noirceuil (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbophobia is not a product of ultra nationalist, extreme right Serbs, but ultra nationalist, extreme right Muslims and Croats. Vlayco (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comment by User:Bosniak. The article looks like a propaganda speech by Slobodan Milosevic and is basically not an encyclopedia article but a piece of Serbian extremist rant and self-victimization. Urban XII (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to examine the page all facts are referenced correctly and appropriately several times in all instances. This is clearly not Serbian self victimization as you claim but rather the reality that Serbophobic sentiment still exists to this day especially seeing many of the recent discriminatory acts were committed recently and at a level of fierocity approaching that of other ethnically driven discrimination such as Anti-Semitism. eyesonly2019 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Explain me then, why tons of other articles about (addcountry)phobia have been deleted, including Croatophobia, and Hellasophobia, but the Serbian one stayed? Talking about neutrality.... Never mind. Evil cannibal Croatian monster logging out. LOL ;)

Because Serbophobia is actual, there are references going back quite a ways. World war one was started over it, and you could tie in WWII as well when you realize Hitler fought in the Austrian Army in WWI because he grew up amid Serbs and such. Saying Serbophobia doesn't exist kind of leaves you with nothing to explain why some of the largest events in European history happened. Croatophobia? Nobody fears or discriminates against Croats (at least in their own country), as far as I know Croatia is 90% ethnically cleansed. Can you tell me which World War was started over the xenophobia of Croats?

If anyone thinks this article is POV, they're right. But the article is presenting a POV issue, of course it is going to sound POV to certain people. By all means, delete it if you can discredit the sources and provide another historic reason for WWI, write a peer reviewed article on it, get it published and use it in the WWI wiki article. If not, consider that Wikipedia is not a forum. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I could tell you which World War was started over the xenophobia of the Germans and the French. Pre-World War I Europe was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Princip, who belonged to an organization (Young Bosnia) that although majority Serb, included Bosnians and Croats as well, and following WWI the Croats and Slovenes voted to join the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. One of the reasons why the Ustasi genocide of the Serbs is so appaling is not because it happened, the Armenians and Jews suffered similar if not worse crimes at the hands of the Turks and Germans, but because it is rarely if ever talked about and most of the people who commited these crimes had the support of the West because the Croats were Westerners commiting genocide against Serbs, not to mention the Nazi involvment. Name me one Croat who was put on trial and actually punished for the Ustasi genocide of Serbs? You can tell me most of the Serbs who have committed genocide, why not Croats? I'm sure you can list a couple of them if you search hard enough but the West has sucessfully written this period of history out of the text books. I went to Catholic Schools for 13 years (Kindergarten-12) because my parents wanted me to go to private schools but for less money than state private schools, NEVER did we learn anything negative about the Irish, the Poles, or the Croats, why? All three of these ethnic groups are dominately Catholic and paint themselves as victims. I learned criticism of the English, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Serbs, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Indians, Dutch, even the United States founding fathers, but never of the dominate Catholic ethnic groups excluding the occational snide comment about Italians or the French which seems so much in fashion now a days. Some of my class mates would be punished for making fun of a Roman Catholic ethnic group (excluding the French), but were allowed to bash non-Catholic dominate ethnic grousp. I had to research the Ustasi, not to mention the Polish-Moscovite War, on my own. Neither was never talked about in my History classes. Someone has an agenda. 71.240.138.137 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that WW2 started because of the unjust position the defeat nations were put into after WW1 (which were started by Serbs). I know that not just Croatian nationalist hate Serbia, but Bosniaks, Albanians, muslims, Hungarians, Macedonians, Germans, Slovenians, Italians, Austrians, many nations from the west and east. Actually, the only nationalist that tolerate Serbs are Greeks and Russian who never met a single Serb, not to mention Serbian nationalist. Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a forum, but then, why did you wrote 2000 unrelated (typical radical) arguments? Croatia is not ethnically cleansed, and I refuse to further walk in your radical fantasies that are tool to avoid any civilised discussion. Croatia is European country, looking forward to advance and all the rest is for the judges to decide. My statement above is POV. So is this article. Should we create criticism to Serphobia article? (there is criticism of holocaust denial and so on)

There is an awareness of Serbian extremism aka Serbian radicalism (Serbian radical party is the second strongest in Serbia) but there is not such thing as Serphobia. Because if there is such thing as Serphobia then there is also: Bosniakophobia (or whatever), Islamophobia, Christianophobia, Catholicphobia, Croatophobia, UnitedStatesofAmericanPhobia...LOL All hate comes with a reason. And I assure you that nobody is afraid of Serbs :))) Are you afraid of Croats? I can sense A LOT of fear here! Holy saint Shepard bless me, I can't believe what wikipedia is turning into. Some time ago it was still worthy research material. But nationalist and lunatics from Youtube are creating their own 'intellectual site Yes, whatever, just remember why wikipedia is no longer trusted as source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.238.154 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I despise the so called "Catholic Intellectual". Not only are they not "Intellectuals", they are also the cruelest, most bigoted, and most all around hateful people I have ever come in contact with. Give me a terriorist before the Catholic "Intellectual", the former is much easier to talk to. 71.240.138.137 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)