Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

continuing on /Archive 2#Needs Cleanup (Serbian POV)

Ok. It seems to me that this article has caused some folks to get upset because it doesn't portray Serbs as butchers and criminals responsible for "99% war crimes [sic.] in Balkans", as we are so used to. I guess this sudden change is too much for some of us to handle. This isn't a forum. Please put your feelings aside if you are going to suggest anything, for not only this article but for all of Wikipedia(you know who you are). People go to Wikipedia to get a quick understanding on a topic so that they can form their own opinions on it, not to read the opinions of others (forums provide us with that). On this topic- xenophobias and discrimination are best noticed by those that they are directed at (i.e. the Serbs). So it is natural that some folks are outraged by such a topic being available on Wikipedia since they are not Serbs, and therefore do not experience this xenophobia. Guess what? All people, yes even Serbs, can experience discrimination. So if you want to write an article on Croatophobia or Bosniakphobia or (insert)phobia, and you can find reliable sources to back such an article, then by all means. Read the article, i think the evidence that such a discrimination exists is plenty under "Instances of Serbophobia". It exists. Save the opinions for the forums. And finally to anyone who still thinks that a xenophobia is strictly a fear of a people here is a definition: "A fear or hatred of persons of a different race, or different ethnic or national origin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.179.189 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) '

There is most definitely both discrimination and hatred against Serbs (I, for instance, dislike them intensely), and it should be covered in this encyclopedia by reliable sources that are as unbiased as possible on this subject. Surely there must be sources like that. The language in this is a bit dramatic at times and seems a little POV. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This article reeks of Serb and requires cleanup

And I'm not just talking the Wikifying kind.

Let's keep it civil mate. This article does seem to have been written with a certain POV, I agree. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove This Entry from Wikipedia

Anybody with half a brain knows that legitimate criticising of Serbia and Serbs cannot be considered a 'phobia.' Joe Biden's opinion of Milosevic regime was a legitimate critique of Serbian racism against Albanians, Jews, Croats, and Bosniaks.This 'Serbian phobia' entry on wikipedia is unfortunately a continuation of a dangerous racist propaganda against Serbia' s neighbors. The term was recently invented and promoted by Serbian diaspora over the internet. It has never widely been used in the past. Similar entries could be made for Croatophobia and Bosniakophobia, but they were voted down in the past due to activism of Serbian authors on Wiki. I suggest this entry be removed because this amounts to propaganda and political activism, nothing else. Thank you, Yahalom Kashny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.181.141 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2010

Keep I don't see here any true reason for deleting the article. Please, bring some evidence for Your statement that the term is "invented [..] by Serbian diaspora". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Vanjagenije and because there are articles of other "nationalfophias" as well. Perhaps the proponent of the deletion is not very aware about the content of the article. Serbophobia? FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete or complete rewrite. This article is heavily biased, but I would not go as far as deleting it. It needs to be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia standards. I do have an anti-Srbija bias btw, but I don't let it get into my editing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: can someone without said bias or any connection to the Balkans maybe rewrite it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Vanjagenije and FkpCascais. Also, this is unofficial "vote" as we don't have any relevant template. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. I ain't putting it in though as I would prefer a rewrite. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this. Why don´t you say specifically what you think could/should be improved, or what you dislike seing in the article? Are you related with Yahalom Kashny? FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to present certain parts as fact rather than opinions and in some cases you have POV characterisations of things like One of the most known manifestations [according to who?] of Serbophobia is the denial of war crimes [who determined there were war crimes committed by them?] committed against Serbs in Bosnia (1992–1995) and Croatia (particularly during Operation Storm in 1995).[21]' 'Current Croatian mayor of the city of Split, Željko Kerum makes a public media outburst [characterises it in a negative manner] claiming “There has never been, nor will there ever be a Serb in my family, that’s how I was raised” to which the Serbian government responded by condemning the statement as racist and sending a letter of protest to the Croatian embassy.[35][36]' 'On the 12th of October 2009, a European Under 21 Championship qualifying match was played in Varaždin, Croatia where Serbia was the visiting side. Several hours prior to the match, Serbian youth squad manager Milovan Đorić was unprovokingly [not even a word and cannot be proven] assaulted by a group of "some seven or eight hooligans" while walking around town in his Serbian squad tracksuit. Đorić was subsequently treated for minor facial injuries. The match itself was also marred by racist abuse [POV] directed towards the Serbian players from the crowd such as with offensive chants such as "Ubij Srbina" (Kill Serbs) and Srbe na vrbe (Hang Serbs from the willow trees) being heard throughout and the subsequent burning of the Serbian flag.[42][43]'

I don't know the guy, what makes you think I am related to him? Or did you mean do I know of him? In answer to the question that you had there before, a good number of my friends growing up were Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian and Kosovar Albanian. I was friends with only one Serb (The son of their delegate to the UN iirc). So their reactions and stories coloured my impressions of Serbia, that and the Yugoslav Wars I grew up reading about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the way you gave exemples is excellent so we can possibly work the article out. For exemple, recently, I tried to help to bring the article Ante Pavelić out of NPOV so it could possibly be nominated for good-article candidate. Similarly as you did here, I went trough the entire article and listed the things I touth that could be improved (Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Ideas_to_improve) and directly edited the article regarding the non-controversial issues (edit history). It is more usefull to go directly to the issues, as you and me did, rather than making general complainings about the tone, as many limit themselfs to do. Now, you may noteced that I am a Serb, but I didn´t edited this article. However, I´ll try to see your remarcs and see if I agree with them. Just to start, I´ll just like to say that the problem is that most of these sensitive articles are problematic and many will be eternally disputed because you´ll allways have people who are anti-Serb and want to see their side of the story in these articles, and pro-Serbs, who obviously have their side of the story. Regarding your exemples:

• Many of the expressions you gave as exemple are oposed to wp style, so they should be replaced or removed, more precisely: "most known manifestations", "outburst", "unprovokingly". These should be removed (the last as you said is not English language).
• However (and not checking the sources, just giving you a rushed answer), the deniyal of war crimes against Serbs does exist, just as the oposite also exists. I really hope you are not going to defend here that there was no war crimes against Serbs in that period... The war crimes are determined actually by The Hague tribunal.
• The Croatian Mayor of Split incident did ocured, and it is just here as a recent exemple. [Why not?]
• Sports events and those racist songs are usually a perfect exemple of how nationalism hidden inside masses still appears, and that happends everytime Serb teams go to Croatia. [a fact].

I think that now I understand the problem here. You think that it would be fair to represent all cases equal here. But, you´re missing the article title. It´s not "Racist hateriot in ex-Yugoslavia" or something similar, but "Serbophobia", and that is why the cases against Serbs are documented here. See other national-phobias, some are even more biased. If that is not the case, and you beleave nothing of this is trouth, I would really ask you to see the Czech documentary Stolen Kosovo. It represents the Serbian view on Kosovo problem. I live in Western Europe for more than 20 years now, and I know quite well how people think on the problem. I can just tell you honestly that knowing what people know here, looking to that documentary and making half-way with western media documentaries, will give you the real situation, and that is just for Kosovo case. Most people from the area (your friends) are biased about the question. That is why I also beleave that a non-Yugoslav editor should review the article. What you think about my words here? P.S.: I just asked you because I know that Yahalom Kashny is extremely biased against Serbs, just as curiosity, but now I see you´re definitelly not him. :) FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "outburst" even favourizes the Split Mayor, because if we said that he has said it cool-headed or officially, it would be worste. FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Yugoslav, and I have no idea where to start. It's such a hodgepodge of everything anyone has allegedly ever said or done against Serbs. There is no scholarly treatment of it as a concept. It seems to me that we should start by looking at whether the article itself should even be on WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article sounds like it was written by Serbian nationalists. It tries to paint all Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians as monsters, as well as portraying Serbs as innocent people who can do no wrong. This article needs a lot of improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; the quote about the Balkans war is fantastically out of context. The "occupation" described in this case involved massacres of 150-270 thousand albanians, almost one fifth of the entire albanian nation. I'd say hate is fucking legitimate. Maybe we should have the quote in full, and a reference to Trotsky's own accounts as a war correspondent. 70.53.137.40 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree here. No offence intended against the Serbian nation and what it has stood for. The article jumps from one extreme to another but nothing on it warrants the title "Serbophobia". Throughout history, a unified Serbian nation has found itself at war with many a bigger and more powerful opponent (whether we are talking NATO, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire). As is always the case when a nation is at war, there is a two-way propaganda machine at work; one by your sources against your antagonist and the other by them against you. Yes there is such thing as anti-Serb propaganda just as there is anti-Albanian and anti-everything for that matter published in quarters hostile to them in particular. Of course we could move the sourced and factual information onto a page concentrating on Serbs as a victim but it would merely be an account of their misfortunes, rather like a criminal record except this list would be devoted to one victim against multiple aggressors. To do this, we can easily publish similar articles on persecution against other nations too, such as the Croats. How many Croats died when their respective region changed from one ruler to another? Republic of Venice was a violent state; Ottomans poked at the region, Hungarians and Austrians at different times committed various atrocities. WWI placed Croats against Central Europe so many died there, and WWII saw Independent State of Croatia kill many of its own who were Communist and fighting with the Partizans. Then there was the persecution they suffered in the years of fighting with local Serbs (1991-95) and likewise in Bosnia each time ARBiH overran Croatian-populated areas (1992-94), the list just grows. This is why I do not favour this article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Evle, I understand the criticism and I already debated a bit of this with Timbou. I beleave this article came in response to Albanophobia. I didn´t created it, neither I contributed much to it, I only tried to expand some more historical events (like Sarajevo assassination) in oposition to the recent events list found down the article. I supose no one really has had time by now to grab this article and improve it, so it just keeps on looking this way. I don´t know, I mean, on one side the issue is real, and many non-Serb people in the region do (and did) saw Serbs and their political dominance (real, or not) as some sort of (again, real, or not) threat, so it is not so unreal. However, the article for time being completely fails to talk about it, and rather focuses on racist episodes from recent years, which doesn´t explain so much the real idea. I would like to focus more on the real animosity that existed between Serbs and others that begin with the 1918 creation of a Serb dominated kingdom that frustrated all aspirations of independence on behalve of Croats (for exemple), or frustrated the Albanian expanssion (another exemple), and all this frustration did exploded in the WWII and was kept re-frouzen again during Tito period, exploding again afterwords in the 1990s... Like in the Greater Serbia exemple, this type of articles should focus much more on historical perspective, rather than some decadent recent events. FkpCascais (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The 1919 Kingdom didn't frustrate the Croats on their bid for independence; they achieved the independence for which they fought which was in the shape of a South Slavic union. The leading Croatian parties were more annoyed at the linking of the shortlived State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Kingdom of Serbia which ultimately made Serbs a majority and placed the power in the hands of the monarchy. The Kosovan Albanian dissatisfaction resulted from the 1913 Treaty of London which placed them in Serbia and Montenegro (and Greece from the south). Obviously I don't believe in Albanophobia either and with this I am not convinced of Anti-Semitism to every extent either but the latter meets great hostility and objecting to it even hints at holocaust denial - something I am not well-placed to comment on. These Balkan-based paranoia pages need some form of amendment, either redirection or deletion. Thanks FkC. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sounds more appropriate. I do not wish to discuss the nuances of Balkans history nor do I think it is our job to do it - this is not a forum and we are not experts on the matter. The issue here is simple - this sort of articles about social prejudice against ethnic or religious groups (e.g. a social phenomenon) need to be supported by references sourced from people who actually know what they are talking about (e.g. sociologists), in contrast to the WP:SYNTH list we have here, consisting of a collection of tabloid and general news reports. It looks like somebody googled a lot to include all documented cases of any person ever bumping into a Serb in the street and added it here. I strongly suggest that one reads past deletion discussions (there were five, and the article amazingly survived all of them) - even editors who were opposed to outright deletion recommended expansion - but I doubt this is what they had in mind (and the last AfD was 4 years ago). IMO it will be difficult to salvage because there are more reliable sources talking about how the term is an invention of Serb nationalism popularised in the 1990s during Milošević when official history in Serbia was being reinvented to put then current Yugoslav wars in context than an actual form of persecution. So even if one went about expanding it the end result might be just the opposite of what the article's original intention had been, and if it gets merged the more appropriate target would be Serb nationalism (which, funnily, does not seem to exist according to Wikipedia as it is a redirect to Serbdom lol). In short - the article should lose all the tabloid crap and focus on what experts say. And according to the article they aren't saying much - and it has been that way for some 6 years now. Timbouctou (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed disoriented. If we want to correlate what happened in Austria-Hungary in 1914 and a bunch of graffiti wankers did in the 2000s Croatia, we need to have a single reliable source that actually spells that out first. Otherwise there's a huge violation of WP:SYNTH.

Even without that, the abuse of policy is egregious in some parts of the article - for example there's a sentence "One of the most known manifestations of Serbophobia is the denial of war crimes committed against Serbs in Bosnia (1992–1995) and Croatia (particularly during Operation Storm in 1995)." and it's referenced to a Human Rights Watch 1996 report that doesn't actually say anything about "Serbophobia" as such.

IMHO all such vague claims in the article need to be pruned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a bias, though, towards western support for Croats over Serbs because Croats are Roman Catholics (Westerners) and Serbs are Orthodox Christians (Easterners)? It seems to me that Westerners have rewritten history books in order to gain sympathes for the Westerner Croats and overlook the savage genocide against the Easterner Serbs. Is this not perhaps Western bias? Ultimately, Serbs and Croats are the same people practicing two very different religions and thus two seperate cultures, but one is eastern and the other western. Perhaps Western Civilization is more willing to consentrate on it's own, rather than look at another (Slavic/Orthodox) civilization's point of view?71.240.138.137 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How do this relate to improving the article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 19:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Anti-Serb sentiment

Problem solved regarding "Serbophobia"-term. And I strongly disagree a merger with Persecution of Serbs, as the two are completely different things. --Zoupan (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I also thought that using a less loaded term would be preferable. Book searches give me:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q=srbofobija+-"Books%2C+LLC"+-wikipedia - 201 results for "srbofobija"
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q=Serbophobia+-"Books%2C+LLC"+-wikipedia - 397 results for "Serbophobia"
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q="Anti-Serb+sentiment"+-"Books%2C+LLC"+-wikipedia - 69 results for "Anti-Serb sentiment"
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q="Anti-Serb"+-%22Books%2C+LLC%22+-wikipedia - 4,680 results for "Anti-Serb"

The tradeoff seems less harmful than this. But, I see now that the article also suffers from other issues and will need to review the whole thing to give a definite opinion... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, having just read Talk:Persecution of Serbs#Merge to article Serbophobia, it looks like we have a consensus that this all fits under anti-Serb sentiment and its various manifestations. Merge will not affect the WP:SYNTH issues. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The merge just made the SYNTH issues more apparent, because the other article was also written by the same kind of propagandist attitude. I've at least organized the content into chronologically ordered sections, so that they're not a complete hodgepodge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Western propaganda in Yugoslav wars

I'm moving this part to Talk:

At the same time, Serbophobia is claimed to manifest itself in the behaviour of Western as well as Balkan media, which have supposedly created an illusion that the Serbs started the Yugoslav wars, that they are the aggressors and the only guilty ones.

Referenced with:

• http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5973 Serb Demonization as Propaganda Coup, Edward S. Herman, April 6, 2009
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-21458862.html Aust ambassador attacks anti Serb racism
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/14/itstimetoendserbbashing It's time to end Serb-bashing, The Guadian

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources, and all I see is a few opinion pieces and a wholly anachronistic news report. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary section break/WP:SYNTHESIS

It looks like the discussion dwindled a bit after being separated in various talk pages and various sections, let's try to 'reboot' it now that three articles have all been merged into one. I think we all see now that the article is a hodgepodge. The question is how to decide on the parameter for splitting. The first thing that comes to mind is a split by period/event. A converse example is Serbian war crimes, but it seems quite fitting (just like it's pretty bizarre to conflate war crimes in different non-contiguous wars, it's bizarre to conflate hostility and persecution in varying historical periods, even if vaguely contiguous). Thoughts, anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps making the 2000s section in prose, instead of points? FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we start by focusing discussion on how this article breaches WP:SYNTHESIS, which is quite apparent to me. I can't see how it is anything else. Here is an example. The two inline citations used in the lede relate to 1. Serb-Croat antagonism and its origins in the policies of the Ottoman & Habsburg empires and 2. the activities of a Croat extremism website based in Canada, Germany or Austria. From this is synthesized a hypothesis that there is such a thing as anti-Serb sentiment also called 'Serbophobia' it also posits that there is such a thing as 'Serbophilia'. From whom? According to the inline citations, as far as the Serbophobia or anti-Serb sentiment, Croats! That appears to be the central theme of the lede. I would say, on that basis, the article title should probably be 'anti-Serb sentiment among Croats, because that is what the inline citations in the lede relate to. There is no wider evidence of anti-Serb sentiment in the lede. Just vast motherhood statements that such things exist. Throughout the article there are statements that 'this' has been called 'Serbophobia' or 'that' is an example of 'Serbophobia'. One of them uses a source reporting on a defence witness in the trial of a convicted war criminal (Martic), who apparently stated that 'Serbophobia' exists. The witness was a former colleague of the convicted war criminal, and the use of this statement to support the existence of Serbophobia is incredibly biased, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Any comments on my summation of the synthesis in the lede? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

as I have no starters for this, what about including in the lead the fact that McDonald essentially says (in two separate books) that Serbophobia is a myth built on the existing victim mentality of the Serbian people by Milosevic and his cronies to justify the actions of Serbs during the 90's? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is McDonald David Bruce MacDonald? --biblbroks (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

sorry, yes. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not meaning to disparage David Bruce MacDonald's opus, especially since until recently I wasn't even aware of it, but I must admit that this notion of one people's mentality appalls me. To the least. To explain why am I appalled by it, I'll try to elaborate with one TL;DR post. My take is this:

One must be at minimum a leading authority in - lacking a better phrase let me call it - "ethno-sociological comparative analysis" in order to make attributions of mentality to an ethnicity. My guess. However, I am not that knowledgeable to claim that such an area of scientific interest as "ethno-sociological comparative analysis" exists, but my chances are that if it does it might be multidisciplinary: a multiple multi- multidisciplinary. Certainly it would be entangling psychology, category theory, ethnology, statistics, linguistics, system science, and perhaps some more expert studies, all of them entwined together in a very intricate and all-encompassing discipline. My guess. And possibly being overly esoteric and quite complex. At least that's my humble opinion. Now, to give any qualifications to that concept arbitrarily termed here as "mentality of an ethnicity" - even when dealing within such an esoteric and complex discipline as "ethno-sociological comparative analysis" might be - well such acts of qualifyings would surely be one of very revolutionary things. Even within such an esoteric and complex discipline as "ethno-sociological comparative analysis" could be. Or is. But to name this concept arbitrarily termed here as "mentality of an ethnicity", to name this "mentality of an ethnicity" a victim one, well this is... well... interesting. To me. Because, if I weren't such a nubcake in the field of "ethno-sociological comparative analysis" as I currently am, and if I weren't so utterly ignorant of the fact that a human endeavor with such domain of interest had obviously been pioneered already and researched to extents unbeknownst to me, well if I weren't so unknowledgeable, even then I'd naively say that to characterize this aforementioned concept termed here as "mentality of an ethnicity", to characterize this concept and that to characterize it in any case of any ethnicity of the world or nation for that matter, to characterize it as "the existing victim mentality", well even then I'd naively say that such an attempt is of somewhat biased nature. If not a partly fascistiod. And even totally racistic. Or, am I just a bit too sensitive to wordings as this: "the existing victim mentality of the Serbian people"? --biblbroks (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

well, maybe I have done Mr MacDonald a disservice with my summation, but before you pass judgement I will put his conclusion on Serbophobia as a construct up here for discussion in the context of including his views in the article. Your perceptions regarding the validity of his particular area of academic research is not really relevant unless you have evidence he is unreliable for some good reason. Once I've put his actual views up here we can discuss properly. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already passed a judgement and I stick to it: to use qualifications of one people as having a mentality and that a victim one, is utterly biased if not even extremely prejudiced. Perhaps racist for that matter. And that is for whoever does this, whatever his or her academic or other background is. That much for reliability and relevance of opinions made by such people. And if it is your own summation of Mr MacDonalds words, then I suggest you to be very very careful in the future not to make any similar attempts. --biblbroks (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

well, how open-minded of you... Fortunately, as he meets the WP:RS criteria, he can be used as a source. Peacemaker67 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, change your sarcastic rhetoric as soon as possible! --biblbroks (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on there. All I have done is indicate that the term is controversial (which is accurate) and provided an inline citation to support the fact that it is controversial. If you think a definition of Serbophobia is required ( I agree) then find one and add it, don't revert good faith sourced edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that you overstepped that thin line? Anyway, I reverted some of my amendments, so I suppose that for now you needn't panick. ;-) --biblbroks (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Podujevo church.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Podujevo church.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Podujevo church.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Balkans section

I have corrected the text in the Balkans section to reflect the actual content of the ref (Tucovic). Tucovic himself participated in the colonisation of Kosovo and was appalled by what occurred. To represent him as in any way critical or judgmental of Albanians for resenting the actions of the Serbian government is not only incredibly misleading, it is also ludicrous. He believed that Serbs should understand and be sympathetic to the Albanians desire for freedom from external rule, and that their failure to do so was not to their credit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholicization in the Military Frontier

Can someone help me out here? In what way does this section contribute in the slightest to the contention that there is such a thing as "Serbophobia"? There are no sources, and it appears to be unrelated to the article topic. Is someone suggesting that the Catholic Church is "Serbophobic", ie the Catholic Church has a sentiment of hostility or hatred towards Serbs, Serbia, the Serbian language, or Serbian Orthodoxy? If so, where are the reliable published sources? I'll flag right now that I consider this is an extraordinary claim, and I plan to delete this whole section unless some WP:RS are produced that relate this to "Serbophobia". Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

on this basis I have deleted the section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Albanization section

This section is almost 100% related to what is even now, after significant Serb migration from the area, a small town in Kosovo called Orahovac/Arraveci. A town that only has a population of a lot less than 100,000. How is one source using an example of the "Islamicisation of Serbs" (largely in the 19th and very early 20th century) in one town in Kosovo be evidence of "Serbophobia"? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Morto i Serbi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Morto i Serbi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Morto i Serbi.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Islamization in the Ottoman Empire User:212.178.241.161

This section has been repeatedly deleted and then restored by User:212.178.241.161. It is completely unreferenced and there is absolutely no information as to why Islamization in the Ottoman Empire has anything whatsoever to do with anti-Serb sentiment. All Christian boys were subject to the blood tribute system, not just Serbs, there is nothing at all specifically anti-Serb about the practice. This is quintessential WP:COATRACK stuff. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Important data

I restored relevant sections that was removed without any agreement or discussion. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's no good reason.

Can you explain why you restored a mixture of irrelevant, badly-sourced, and unbalanced content? You are responsible for your edits. The Albanianization section that you added doesn't mention anti-serb sentiment at all; I am removing this synthesis and pov-pushing again. bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with Bobrayner. This article has been a coatrack for some time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, should we delete it? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think this article is really about why there is mutual distrust and enmity between the various people's of the region, at the moment it is just a coatrack. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the two incidents from Croatia, which qualify as instances of anti-Serb sentiment. Also, moving the entire "criticism" section to the lede is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, as is adding an unsourced statement seeking to justify anti-Serb sentiment among Albanians. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear what is even considered anti-Serb sentiment, and am not quite sure anyone thinks most of this is relevant. Some Albanians dislike Serbs, and some Croats do too. No doubt some Turks dislike Greeks and vice versa, some Australians dislike Americans etc etc. This article is currently a WP:COATRACK for Serbs to wave as a 'poor us, they hate us, isn't it unfair', but it doesn't even establish that there is such a thing as 'anti-Serb sentiment' or why it is notable. It doesn't explain any of the grounds on which some Croats, Slovenians, Bulgarians or whatever dislike Serbs. It is a very strange article and I'm not sure it even has a place on WP. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The pro-Serb editors here seem to have a classic failure to understand the concept of WP:SYNTH. I suggest you proceed with your cleanup and let the force of WP:ARBMAC deal with the disruption. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this article definitively needs cleanup. I will help. I also agree that moving the entire "criticism" section to the lede is inappropriate per WP:UNDUE.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of academic coverage of the existence of this 'concept', it is more than reasonable for there to be a mention of the criticism of the idea of it in the lead, I am restoring mention of criticism in the lead. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that there is "the complete lack of academic coverage of the existence of this 'concept'". "anti-serb sentiment".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich, Attila...? You frequently used them in your editing. Don't attempt to justify moving the entire "criticism" section to the lede with "the complete lack of academic coverage" is false excuse and disruptive.

In the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich, Attila...? You frequently used them in your editing.

This article, like many other on wikipedia, could be improved but moving the entire "criticism" section under "lack of academic coverage of the existence of this 'concept'" excuse would be wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about with Tomasevich and Hoare, but I have reworked the lead of this article to reflect an operationalised definition used by David MacDonald, so at least we know what the article is about. I will expand when I get time. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I will explain to you what am I talking about with Tomasevich and Hoare. We spoke about your claim that there is "the complete lack of academic coverage of the existence of this 'concept'" - in the article. I explained to you that there are two authors you frequently use in your editing (hundreds of times actually in case of Tomasevich, maybe more than thousand times) who are used in the article.

Your source misinterpretation during your "reworking of the lead" is subject of the next section of this page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Source misinterpretation

This edit is based on source misinterpretation. The source used to support assertion that "Serbofobia" is "otherwise described as a "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs"." does not support such assertion. Removal of http://www.balkanpeace.org because it was tagged as unreliable a couple of months ago is wrong, especially because it was not discussed at all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Antidiskriminator has claimed that I have used an 'extreme interpretation of the source' in a recent edit of the lead of this article, where I actually provided MacDonald's definition of Serbophobia. The relevant passage is here on p. 82 [1] where he says <quote>The myth of 'Serbophobia' (a historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs that Serb nationalists have likened to anti-Semitism) allowed nationalists to trace a continuous legacy of hatred and violence against Serbs amongst the Croats.</quote> Immediately above this he says that <quote>An essential precondition and follow-up to Serbian machinations in the Krajina and East Slavonia involved proving the existence of a historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs</quote>.

The lead as edited by me read as follows: <quote>Anti-Serb sentiment or Serbophobia is a "historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs", otherwise described as a "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs". The use of the term has been controversial, as some sources state it is a myth used by Serb nationalists such as Dobrica Ćosić during the Yugoslav Wars in order to show an unbroken history of hatred and violence against Serbs by the Croats. Some controversy with the term "Serbophobia" purportedly corresponds to its interplay with perceived historical revisionism practiced by the Milosevic government in the 1990s, and the contention that Serbian writers constructed the "myth of Serbophobia," as "...an anti-Semitism for Serbs, making them victims throughout history."</quote>

How is this misrepresented?

Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I already explained how you misinterpreted it.

This edit is based on source misinterpretation. The source used to support assertion that "Serbofobia" is "otherwise described as a "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs"." does not support such assertion.

Your comment is another misinterpetation. Here is what source actually says: "An essential precondition and follow-up to Serbian machinations in the Krajina and East Slavonia involved proving the existence of a historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs." The source does not support the assertion that Serbophobia is otherwise described as "historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Centre for Peace in the Balkans

The Centre for Peace in the Balkans is tagged as unreliable source. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here [2] is a indictment by Marko Attila Hoare of the academic standards of those that contribute to this website.

Not a single respectable work of scholarship has been produced by any member of this political category in the West, though they have produced an enormous quantity of what can most charitably be described as extended political tracts, based entirely on English-language sources; indeed, largely on other political tracts by other Balkan genocide deniers. Scholarly laziness, it should be said, is not a charge that can be levelled against actual Serb nationalist historians, many of whom have written excellent books based on serious research; though I disagree with their political views, I respect their scholarship. By contrast, the 'anti-war' people in the West write propaganda rather than history about the Balkans; necessarily so, since they believe Yugoslavia was destroyed by a Western or German imperialist conspiracy, and this is not a viewpoint that anyone who actually does research on the subject can sustain. The average MPhil student here at Cambridge would be embarrassed to produce the sort of rubbish churned out by Michael Parenti, Diane Johnstone, Kate Hudson and other ill-informed genocide deniers, whose sole purpose is to confirm other lefties in their anti-Western prejudices. Not one of these people has visited an archive, or consulted the Serbo-Croat-language press, or examined any former-Yugoslav historical documents, or carried out a series of extended interviews with participants in the conflict.

Examples of the contributions by those named by Hoare to this website

• Parenti [3]
• Johnstone [4]

Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP is valid for talk pages too.

In order to avoid violation of BLP my comment about Marko Attila Hoare can be viewed only in edit mode.

• Comment about Hoare: click edit mode if you want to see it.

• The article about Michael Parenti actually says that in Washington, D.C., in 2003, the Caucus for a New Political Science gave him a Career Achievement Award. In 2007, he received a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from U.S. Representative Barbara Lee and an award from New Jersey Peace Action.

Are you sure that 'The Centre for Peace in the Balkans' should be proclaimed unreliable because Attila's criticism of some of awarded authors who contribute to the website of this organization?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question (albeit it seems you designed it as a rhetorical one) depends on what he won those awards for and who he received it from. What makes the opinion of the Caucus for a New Political Science, Barbara Lee or the New Jersey Peace Action relevant, or at least what makes it relevant enough to trump the opinion of Marko Attila Hoare? And what did he get the awards for? Please elaborate. Timbouctou (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The point of my comment was not on Parenti's awards but on Attila and his "criticism". I elaborated it in the text which can be seen in edit mode.

Thank you for emphasizing this awards issue. Yes, it is very important who gave Parenti his awards and what for. He received his awards from Barbara Lee "a hero among many in the anti-war movement", Caucus for a New Political Science and New Jersey Peace Action. I don't know exacty what for he received his awards.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism??

Ok. Looking at the Break up of Yugoslavia section of the article, it is clear this is a Serbian victimization article. There is no mention of Anti-Croatian or Anti-Bosnian sentiment present in the region as well. The article paints a false portrait of the Serbia being guilt free and having done nothing wrong. The sources presented are dated propaganda pieces that do not hold any sturdy facts. Is the Wiki community no longer regulating articles and their validity? - unsigned comment IP, 16:35

Why is there a criticism section for this term when there is none for other racist sentiments? There are no criticism sections for the terms Anti french, anti semetic or anti german sentiment so why should there be one here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualblackdimensions (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a term Anti-Serb but not for Croats and Bosnians, hmmm?

That section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.242.52 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

if anything, it will be expanded. Perhaps it should be described as 'Criticism and Controversy'. For there certainly is also controversy about it, but also criticism of the use of the term and general Serb-centred victim propaganda to justify actions taken in the 90's. Bennett, MacDonald and Cohen are all WP:RS examples of this. The quality of some of the sources cited in this article is highly dubious.

A criticism section implies that such a sentiment may not even exist. If the such a section is not present in any other nationality, it should not be here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualblackdimensions (talk • contribs) 03:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, since there is no wiki entry about Anti-Croat sentiment, than that is proof that Croats are the greatest victims of Croatophobia.

that depends on whether it is partly a construct of Serb-centred victim propaganda, surely? We have WP:RS that say that it is, at least to some extent, so the criticism and controversy is not WP:FRINGE and therefore deserves a mention and the section should stay. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Serbophobia is greatest prove that Serbophobia exists. There is no excuse for hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.224.17 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, denying anything makes it true. Which makes you delusional. Wikipedia is a place for fact not self victimizing "feel good: propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.233.58 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the criticism section, seems like a consensus hasn't been reached yet. Feel free to undo me if I'm wrong. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should stay, there certainly is no consensus that it should be removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Spiritualblackdimensions is right that criticism section implies that Anti-Serb sentiment may not even exist. Justifying Anti-Serb sentiment denial with the existence of Serbia victimisation is wrong. This article is about Anti-Serbian sentimet not about Serb-centred victim propaganda which can be pointed to in See also section or explained in one or couple of sentences without denial of Anti-Serb sentiment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A completely illogical assertion. A "Criticism' section in the "Catholic Church" article wouldn't imply the Church didn't exist. No-one has yet provided a definition of what "anti-Serb sentiment" is. Except MacDonald. And he basically says it is Serb-centred victim propaganda, not something in and of itself. Unless you can provide RS that define what it is, the two go together like wine and cheese. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect and fallacious. Current criticism section not only denies the existence of Anti-Serb sentiment but attempts to justify it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tautological nonsense. How exactly does it do that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I find your comments and your position self-contradicting and nonconstructive because you:

1. refer to different opinion of two other editors as nonsense.
2. deny existence of Serbophobia claiming that "Serbophobia is Serb-centred victim propaganda, not something in and of itself"
3. claim that this section does not justify Serbophobia although it says ("Albanian people ... feel hatred of everything Serbian") because of the Balkan wars waged more than 100 years ago. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's still more specific secondary source coverage of the deconstruction of the concept in the article than there is of the concept itself. There's a bunch of coat-racking on the generic concept, but there's not a lot of coherent thought about it. The only reasonable way to offset the criticism is to add the latter. Stop arguing about it and just do that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Assertions based on outdated and policitally motivated work of Dimitrije Tucovic (far from being secondary source) are not criticism nor deconstruction of Serbophobia but an unsuccessful attempt to justify it. This is discussion about criticism section. You are free to start new discussion about other issues this article has which are not valid reason for not resolving the issues of this section. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again you refuse to find and add reliably sourced information to justify your position on an issue, yet claim that reliably sourced material refuting it should be removed. Do you read your own posts? I am not claiming the matter is resolved, I am stating that the criticism section should not be removed because it is reliably sourced and directly relevant to the topic. As you are so fond of writing, just because you disagree with me does not mean I have to engage in never ending dialogue with you. There is no consensus for the removal of the section, and nothing you have written changes that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Instead to address arguments of other editors or to apologize because you referred to other editors' opinion as nonsense or because you wrote fallacious and incorrect statements you wrote comment about me (being fond of writing). Having no arguments for your position you continue to repeat "no consensus". Consensus is build on arguments. Until you or someone else present valid arguments to support your position I will continue to agree with Spiritualblackdimensions and IP user that it is wrong to justify this sentiment or to imply that such a sentiment may not even exist.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Use WP:3O or some other form of WP:DR, because your argument is still void IMO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish it would be so easy. 3o is not appropriate because there are more than 2 people who participated in this discussion. In order to use some other form of wp:dr it is necessary to present arguments of both sides.

• Three editors believe that current text of controversy section should be removed because it implies that this sentiment may not even exist and attempts to justify it. I additionally clarified that attempt to justify hatred is based on the outdated primary politically motivated source.
• Peacemaker67 and you disagree but I don't think you brought some arguments for your position except "nonsense", "your argument is void", " and "no consensus". Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue. In the absence of counterarguments it is wrong to proclaim "no consensus". One nice essay says, "few vocal dissenters do not create "no consensus"". Will you please help to proceed with WP:DR and summarize your arguments why do you think above three editors are wrong so the current text of the controversy section should be preserved? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section does not imply that the topic of the article does not exist. If it (simultaneously!) exists, a criticism section sourced to a secondary source does not justify it. Your claim that it's an "outdated primarily politically-motivated" source is an assertion that is not backed by another secondary source saying so, explicitly or implicitly. Overall, I can't tell whether your claims here are based on some sort of personal animosity or bias, trolling, or an actual incompetence to understand both the English language and the relevant Wikipedia policies - it's a waste of time in any case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Antid's two edit user and IP are a little stale to be using them as backup. You are essentially on your own here. Unless you can rustle up some support from someone who has edited WP in the last year, perhaps even an account that has edited more than just this article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Your attempt to discredit opinion of two other editors just because they are not regular wikipedia editors is wrong.

@Joy: I politely asked you to summarize your position. Using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence is not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. I will proceed with wp:dr within reasonable period of time.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to say that I'am completed disgusted that MacDonald's article continues to stay up even though we can clearly see how this author puts blame on the Serbians for all the hatred that has been endured by Serbians such as forced removal all the way to ethnic cleansing. I have tried to taking down that piece by MacDonald twice and yet you guys keep wanting this piece by MacDonald up. This is complete bigotry by the admins and as a moral and decent human being I won't stand for this, if this is the type of gross racist disrimination that editors are known for, then Wikipedia is an absolute biased place that allows for gross xenophobic bigotry to exist. If an article on the civil rights movement showed an author arguing that slavery wasn't as bad as many believe it to be, that is sheer utter non sense and no one would believe in that authors point. This is exactly what is happening here by allowing MacDonald's piece to stay up, people can believe that it was the Serb's fault that they were killed, it was their fault that they were forced to leave their homes etc instead of going after the true perpetrators who were responsible for these genocides.. And you know what that is the exact same gross bigotry that had led to these same horrible events throughout and the editors are responsible for the same thing to possibly happen since McDonald's ridiculously bigoted points continues to stay up on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.253 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The myth

This thread contains comments by User:Staro Gusle, a blocked sockpuppet of User:Evlekis
@Bobryner. With this comment User:Leiwandesk explained this issue. Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Existence of crimes against Serbs doesn't prove the existence of Serbophobia. Serbophobia is not the same as anti-Serb sentiment. No one is denying anti-Serb sentiment, nor the genocide of the Serbs in WWII. But Serbophobia is (defined as) something else (a good definition is in the cited book). If we continue to have one article instead of two there must be an opposing view. Yes, in the lead of the article. Zhmr (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And first of all we should be led by objectivity. Neither MacDonald's definition of Serbophobia as part of his analysis of holocaust semantics describing its nationalist use (not the concept or the idea of Serbophobia itself!) for two decades is an opposing view to Serbophobia understood as any anti-Serb sentiment, nor is any anti-Serb sentiment an exclusive Serbian view on this phenomena. Anything else would be some kind of an Ems dispatch revisionism of well-documented history which is proven for example in the Serbien-muss-sterbien-cartoon below as an originary Imperial Austro-Hungarian expression of anti-Serb sentiment (and not a Serbian view on it!) --Leiwandesk (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zhmr that the lead should reflect the article and therefore the myth. This article is very unlikely to be split on the grounds that any splitting off of the "myth" would be a WP:POVSPLIT. The cartoon "proves" only that at that time one part of the Austrian press believed that Serbia (not Serbs) was behind the assassination of their monarch. Part of the problem here is that some editors want to portray everything done or said against Serbia and Serbs as wholly anti-Serb sentiment when in fact it is partly anti-Serbia sentiment, based on reactions to the actions of that nation-state. The two are not synonymous. The myth and "victim mentality" is not revisionism, it is proper historical analysis. If you disagree with MacDonald's definition, find an alternative scholarly definition and contrast the two, don't try to sideline or diminish the only definition we have because it doesn't suit your world view. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, this article is about anything but a "myth", it deals - as it is shown in the list below - with an anti-cultural, -national or -ethnic sentiment, so it has nothing to do with states. The cartoon neither shows a symbol of a Serbian state nor an allegory of it, but a Serb crushed by the Austrian hand. That Serb drawn as a terrorist does not representing the kingdom of Serbia or Serbian state institutions, but the cartoon refers clearly to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand which leads to the conclusion that the state of Serbia has to be destroyed. Right, the intention of the Austrian press was to whip hatred up against Serbia, but not represented by an abstract symbol - but its people themselves showing all of them as ugly terrorists which is nothing else than a racist act. A state can only die as an allegory of it, but its people has to die in real or as the German emperor Wilhelm II had put it: "Mit den Serben muss aufgeräumt werden - und zwar bald!", "we have to get rid of the Serbs (not Serbia!) - soon!" According to your definition and arguments you have to delete all similar views and even respective articles including for example racial antisemitism or declaring such articles as part of an uncertain mythology, because they don't deal with an anti-whatever-state-sentiment. Besides you would have to erase a lot of historical facts from national history, e.g. the battle of Gallipoli would have never been part of Australian history, because the Commonwealth had not been established yet. Furthermore, the holocaust would not have ever happened, because there was no Jewish state at that time, and Jasenovac would have been another myth indeed, because only the so-called "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and the Ustasha led NDH-State did exist: there couldn't have been any Serb victims because there hadn't been a Serbian state at that time, neither afterwards when (the Socialist Republic of) Serbia was just part of Tito's state of Yugoslavia. If you like you can continue of course until the recent wars in former Yugoslavia: there wouldn't have been any war crimes at all until all those post-war national states would have been recognized by the international community. That's not my world view, but the consequence of your line of argument. And it has been you who brought up MacDonald and its definition which describes neither anti-serb-sentiment nor serbophobia or whatever you'd like to call anti-cultural, -national or -ethnic sentiments towards Serbs which this article should deal with, he just does analyse only the word usage (or the idea...) of one concept (of an idea...) of the idea of "antiserbism" (of another idea...) and the legitimation of that word or concept (nothing more) by Serb nationalists linking it to antisemitsm explaining its semantics derived from a historical view in a specific discourse which lasted less than two decades. There aren't right or wrong definitions, just appropriate or useful and inappropriate or senseless ones. And why must there be a citation-needed definition especially for the anti-Serb-sentiment at all when for instance such a definition for Anti-Irish sentiment is not necessary? Finally, I'd like to ask you why you have not only removed the catholocization section of this article without any further talk? You could have done also some research by yourself if you were actually interested in that topic instead of deleting it. Or should all this show in a very sophisticated way the self-victim-mentality that "all men are created equal - except the Serbs"? Btw. then Serbian state institutions never collaborated with highly overrated "Black Hand"-circles. The opposite is correct: according to secret service information he had received it was Serbian prime minister Nikola Pašić who did warn the Austro-hungarian government of a plot and asked to delay Franz Ferdinand's visit to Sarajevo on St. Vitus Day because this must have been regarded as a fundamental and deliberate provocation from the point of view of the Serbs in Bosnia. After having been ignored all warnings which the assassination has proven as true it was easy to blame the prime minister and the Serbian state in general for it driving the discussion in the direction how much Pasic did know about it or if he even was involved in it.--Leiwandesk (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, and what I did read was completely off-topic. I did not say it was all anti-Serbia, I said the two were being conflated. Please read my posts, they are not long. It is clear that we disagree on this, as has been discussed on your talkpage already. We still have no definition of this other than that used by MacDonald. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also the Catholicisation bit was a completely unreferenced and exceptional claim. If you believe "Catholicisation in the Krajina" is an example of anti-Serb sentiment then find a reliable source that says just that and add it. If not, drop it. When I first looked at this article it was a WP:COATRACK of WP:OR and unsourced or poorly sourced rot, quite a bit of which I subsequently deleted. When I see an extraordinary claim I tag it, mention it on the talk page and subsequently delete it after some time has passed. Every editor has the option of researching the tagged or deleted bit and re-adding it if it can be reliably sourced. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your reductio ad absurdum doesn't actually work, because you're fighting a straw man. Nobody has claimed that that German propaganda wasn't real. It's the leap from one historical period to another, while weaving a specific story, that needs to be substantiated by reliable sources, rather than original research. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Leiwandesk has not claimed that Peacemaker67 insisted that "German propaganda wasn't real". Leiwandesk contradicted Peacemaker67's position. Nobody addressed Leiwandesk's arguments and nobody replied to his/her questions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. I am not a fan of using rhetorical terms, but Leiwandesk completely misrepresented my argument by generalising it when it dealt with specifics (by reference to another unrelated article). If only he or she would actually address the issue and lack of reliable sources rather than engaging in semantics, then he or she might be able to make a point. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

He/she did. That's the problem with WP:TLDR. What get's me is how the "myth" and the sheer demagogy seems to outrank the content itself. For example, Serbophobia not being widely accepted in the west is one thing, certain political analysts dismissing the concept is another. But what about the alleged 80s revisionism? Is MacDonald proving the facts false? No. The Austrian campaign is just one thing and IMHO probably the most sinister publication. In truth, the Serbian nation has often found itself a victim of wider dislike. Nothing as bad as "all Serbs must die" but you have Italy's support for an independent Albania not because it sympathised with Albanians but because it prevented Serbia from having Adriatic access which would have upset their balance. Then there is the all too famous cliche within Yugoslavia itself, "Weak Serbia, Strong Yugoslavia". Far from being anything as nasty as the Austrian campaign, those certain statistics far outweigh the whimpering of one political analyst who draws attention to its proliferation during the emergency period. Staro Gusle (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

still no reliable sources for all this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment went on a bit. I'll explain myself more briefly. The first part of the lead is of course introduction to topic, normally a bold reference to article title. The next thing needs to be examples of what it refers to, and we can find some. Then after that it's okay to add comments as to what commentators say. The problem is privately, Serbophobia would be the word on people's lips. "Anti-Serb sentiment" as per article title has no defining sources at all in a proper name capacity, hence its appointment as a general term. Sources instead say anti-Serb propaganda maybe, or discrimination against Serbs. I've not googled them but I know that such articles exist. Also, reliablilty would not be top priority since they would only be used to clarify the existence of people referring to the concept, those people being themselves of course. That said, I think we can find reliable sources but right now I am concentrating on expanding the lead to insert topical content before criticism. We could do it the other way round but it would look odd. Staro Gusle (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I believe the article title is a consensus one based on previous discussion, although that is not to say a new consensus can't emerge. Serbophobia is given as an alternative to the title, so there is no reason why a definition of it can't be used rather than the clearly made-up "anti-Serb sentiment". You can't add examples if you have no reliable sources for "Serbophobia". Cart before the horse. And no-one is seriously going to accept Trifkovic as a reliable source independent of the subject (or Carl Savich in case anyone was thinking about adding him). If this subject is notable then there has to be multiple reliable sources in it that are independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what is wrong with Carl Savich? FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters I would say as a source he is not independent of the subject. But are you talking about his serbianna blog, or a book? Is he an academic that has studied the subject of Serbophobia? What qualifications has he? What reputation does he have for reliability or bias on historical issues regarding Serbia and Serbs? Is he accurate in what he publishes or has he been criticised for publishing inaccurate or misleading information? What editorial oversight is his work subjected to? You know the questions, Fkp. WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am just asking as he seems to be an historian. FkpCascais (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

either he is or he is not. What makes you think he is? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, if I find a RS confirming he is a historian I´ll come back with this. I am not familiarised with him, I was just asking... FkpCascais (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Serb sentiment is an umbrella term or generalization, obviously it will be poorly sourced just as List of massacres in the Kosovo War is a WP creation. We find a subject then we link sources/stories to it but many articles do not represent a real world phenomenon. The fact is that Serbophobia as a concept is not a "myth" but it is confined to the nation's sympathizers and is rejected by the nation's detractors. Obviously Serbophobia is more degrading and more emphatic than "anti-Serb sentiment" in that implies an outright hatred. Naturally no Serb can truly accept no nation recognizing their declared states in Croatia (Krajina) and Eatern Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars, seeing a West-brokered peace deal in 1994 putting at end to Bosniak-Croat hostilities then all uniting for a joint attack to end the Serb rebel states alongside world powers and claiming that the unlawful grounds for existence of those states was that they were not AVNOJ entities - and then a few years later support the UCK in Kosovo, pushing from the first moment to have FRY forces expelled, succeeding after airstrikes then nine years later recognize Kosovo - no AVNOJ argument there. But it doesn't end there, Kosovo achieved widespread positive feedback from US recognition to "welcoming of independence" from organizations such as the Basque authority in Spain - all entitled to their own opinions, but Serbs who claim Serbophobia are neither stupid nor blind to world events. You don't get the same positive and warm reception let alone recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia nor many other would-be states to exist or to have existed before being retaken by an aggressor (in the eyes of locals). These feats give Serbs to feel they are victims of international protectionism and that alone is enough to prove the sentiment. You're not going to convince them with fairy stories about how their heavy-handed 1990s oppression or disproportionate number of atrocities that time influenced on what side nations would eventually fall. That said, Savich and Trifkovic are fine sources, people just don't like them because their ethnicity so-called "overrules" their wisdom. Staro Gusle (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Please use more punctuation, I cannot follow what you are trying to say. However, saying that Serbs "feel" a certain way does not make this a notable subject (or advance any argument from a WP perspective). To be notable (and therefore worthy of an article), it needs to meet WP:GNG ie "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I'm not seeing much coverage at all in reliable sources. No-one seems to have produced any reliable source that gives "Serbophobia" significant coverage. Savich and Trifkovic are not "fine sources" per WP:RS, because they are not independent of the subject. I don't believe Savich is reliable per WP:RS either, per my discussion with Fkp above. Until someone produces sources that meet WP:GNG, my view is that this article presents this concept in a way that is basically WP:OR and a WP:COATRACK. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So,rry to- ha've conf;used you! Peace. maker, Ill use more. punct.uation "this", time!?! :))))))

Seriously, RS is the problem for everything. The biggest difference between Antisemitism and Serbophobia is that the former was actually coined precisely by the perpetrators and largely to cover up any evil intention. Serbophobia was coined by the victim race. Difficulty arises when nobody among Serbia's enemies will admit "dislike of Serbs". So it is fine to mention that belief of the sentiment originates from within. But as the lead goes on to give MacDonald's analysis mentioning him rather than taking it all as red, it wouldn't breach RS to say "Savich argues so and so", or "Trifkovic says this and that". That way you won't be using the source to prove the statement is correct but to clarify that is exactly what they said. Make sense? Staro Gusle (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

No. That is not how WP works. RS is not "a problem for everything" it is the "minimum requirement for everything". Neither Savich nor Trifkovic meet the requirements of WP:RS IMO. As far as I am concerned that's it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

it is confined to the nation's sympathizers and is rejected by the nation's detractors

The encyclopedia needs to describe the (universal) reality. If it's a concept confined to two sets of unknown people, it's not generally notable. But, this whole line of reasoning is entirely off-topic because MacDonald is supposed to be a neutral secondary source. Or are you saying he's a detractor of the Serbian nation because of what he wrote about Serbophobia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

He is a detractor and that is a fact, something that fits neatly with being an apologist for their opponents. Normally as is so often the case when alleged "experts" achieve "secondary neutral" status simply because they are not from the region, they often plagiarize those that are from the part of the world and involved against one of the nations. MacDonald isn't the only source that makes his claims about Serbophobia, there are hundreds of blogs and minor sites which slam the term and staple it to "nationalists" as if moderate Serbs reject the notion. He chooses to agree with them but he has proven nothing. 92.40.93.214 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but what are your sources for these claims? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To Joy, not from me above this comment. On principle, I am inclined to agree with you that his personal rejection would not automatically put him in the "detractors" box but it is the way in which he does it, his entire works on the Balkans could so easily be uttered by the clerics of the nations who had direct problems with Serbia/Serbs in the 1990s. Conversely if he admitted Serbophobia then he would have been branded another pro-Serb apologist with all other derogatory labels that go with the uniform. And (going off-topic a bit here), when you represent this type of position, those news networks and publishers we call reliable just don't want to know you and they won't give you the time of day. Also, (slightly off-topic again so I apologize) we have a live problem at The Weight of Chains whereby I have intervened recently on a matter of criticism which a majority now wishes to have on show. I don't believe E-novine is a good source but the others like the author. Staro Gusle (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Either way, can you cite some sources to that effect (for the on-topic part)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Carl Savich

This thread contains comments by User:Staro Gusle, a blocked sockpuppet of User:Evlekis
...BTW is not a historian. His line of argument is effective but he attracts a lot of criticism from the opposing side which leaves his praise confined to Balkananalysis and the whimpering element in blogs/sources closer to non-symapthetic publications. This means we cannot even mention him let alone use his works here. 94.116.172.109 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he attracts a lot of criticism from the opposing side doesn´t necessarily mean that he´s "unusable" for WP. We should allways include different views on one matter, not only the main stream one, specially on these (still) hot political topics... How are you so sure he is not an historian? That should be the main question in my view, if he indeed is, or not, an historian. If he isn´t, he should be disregarded. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One comment in this forum[5] says he has nothing beyond a Master's degree. The problem is there is nothing to confirm his historian status, not even on his article. 94.116.129.172 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me on top. Didn't know when leaving Wikipedia I was auto-logged out. Listen, Savich may very well rebut Bruce MacDonald's shallow arguments on a one-to-one however when it comes to reliablity and what is acceptable across WP, it has its rules and sadly Savich is no match for MacDonald - to find criticism of MacDonald you have to know your Cyrillic alphabet if you get what I mean. Staro Gusle (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Some websites present him as historian, however there are no reliable websites to confirm it... so I don´t care if we drop him, as he is of no use for us here on Wikipedia in case we cannot confirm he is actually an historian. I just asked in case someone knew anything more on him. FkpCascais (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

He is notable therefore what he publishes is fine as long as the article mentions that he said it and the term is wrapped in quotes. The biggest problem with Serbophobia is the claims are all from victim nation and are not admitted by alleged aggressor/enemy. Staro Gusle (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Savich being notable does not make him reliable or even "fine". But on an un-related topic, Staro. Can you explain your recent arrival and divulge whether you have any previous WP accounts and what they were? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does if representing him. For a start much of what he has published can fit onto his own article, and since this article is a main hub for the subject, it is fine. Trifkuvic even more so as he has appeared in media a lot more, as such that media is the source. 92.40.93.214 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is not from me. To answer Peacemaker67, I am new to English language Wikipedia, any further enquiries please write to me on my user talk, any problems with my editing then I take it you know how to go from there. I know Savich does not meet WP:RS, I was only pointing out that he could be quoted as long as we stated that he was the one saying it. Besides, you're not looking very practically are you? Bruce MacDonald's stand-alone segment makes a point but goes straight for the neck and to actually have real examples of people having made remarks that suggest anti-Serb sentiment is better for the article. Staro Gusle (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Savich is not RS, AND he can't be used at all BECAUSE he is not RS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough if that's how you see it. I don't know why we bother having a Carl Savich article given he is totally non-RS. Staro Gusle (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

They are two separate things. He can be notable but not reliable as a source. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture of a Serb having his head "saw off" is a fake. This book written by former Jasenovac memorial park boss is dealing with photos attributed to Jasenovac and killing of Serbs.

http://www.znaci.net/00003/611.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjosip (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Kvaternik

Antidiskriminator, the Rakovica Revolt happened in 1871, not in 1866. In fact, if you read the entire page of Aleksa Đilas' book you cited, it says so right there. And then you will also see that there's no actual meaningful relationship between the (utterly failed) insurrection and anti-Serb sentiment. And if you actually investigate the issue just a little bit further than a Google Books search, you'll find something like Kosta Milutinović's 1960 article about how the revolt was received by prominent Serbian press outlets. Jovan Subotić, Mihailo Polit-Desančić, Svetozar Miletić wrote explicitly positively about it and mentioned no anti-Serb sentiment in it, while the Srpski narod government-backed paper criticized it, but also did not see fit to call it anti-Serb, rather it also clearly stated that Serbs participated in it. In Serbia proper, the reaction also did not involve anything about anything anti-Serb about it, including two positive article's in Svetozar Marković paper, one of which explicitly talked about the Party of Rights' denial of the Serbs in Croatia, dismissing it as a religious dogma rather than facts, and suggested disregarding that in favor of the other aspects of the party that he found to be very positive! I see absolutely no reason to weave the story of the revolt into the context of anti-Serbian sentiment. Instead, I see it as yet another sloppy WP:SYNTH violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't insist on this issue. I think that rebellion organized to create state in which Serbs will have no political rights is anti-Serb. Just because the source does not explicitly mention Serbophobia it is wrong to accuse another editor for "yet another sloppy WP:SYNTH", especially after significantly contributing to the quality of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is an incoherent and context-free collection of anything that might be considered anti-Serb. Adding the Rakovica Revolt simply because, um, it was a political event that might not have benefited some Serbs... well, it epitomises the WP:SYNTH problems with this article. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

the point, Ad, is that a source needs to explicitly mention Serbophobia, or Anti-Serb sentiment etc, to even be relevant to the article. For example, the whole 2000s section should just be deleted as a coatrack. None of the sources are saying "this is another case of the practical effects of Serbophobia", they just say an event happened. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you address to me about 2000's section added by Joy? If you have any complaint about it start new thread, this is discussion about Kvaternik which is already over.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am making a general point about your use of sources, reflecting on your approach to this issue. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I will refrain from further discussion here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

From my admittedly overly terse edit summary, I believe that I was making a history merge. I don't claim affiliation, let alone copyright, on that text. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist and I have been following recent discussions and AD's editing. I feel compelled to express agreement with Joy's, Peacemaker's, and Bobrayner's concerns. A lot of context needed to understand the article topic is simply missing, a lot of random events are grouped together to imply that there is some underlying motivation behind them all (a textbook case of WP:SYNTH) and most importantly - it lacks scholarly sources which deal with the concept directly. On the one hand the article tries to prove that there is some kind of pathological hatred (or "jealousy") towards Serbs which just magically happens to come up every several decades and dominates political life in neighbouring countries, but then fails to deliver any scholarly treatment of the historic development of the seemingly omnipresent Serbophobia, making it nowhere nearly comparable to other forms of discrimination are like antisemitism or islamophobia. Just one example - the article in its current devotes an entire section about anti-Serb reactions in Sarajevo in 1914 but it does not even bother to mention that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serb nationalist, whose specific motivation was to "break off Austria-Hungary's south-Slav provinces so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia" and proceeds to describe what was essentially a political reaction to a political action. Phrasings like "anti-Serbian animus in a person's behavior" do not really mean anything and the sentence "in the 1986 draft Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts expresses concerns that Serbophobia, together with some other things, could provoke the restoration of the Serbian nationalism" is blatantly false - the memorandum was itself an important block in building up Serb nationalism which later exploded in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And this is the first time I hear of the 1871 Rakovica Revolt as directed against Serbs. This is all such a mess. Timbouctou (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really object generally to the inclusion of sources just because they don't use the phrase, but they do have to fit in the phrase's meaning, its narrative. For example, most of the Ustaše actions against Serbs can be categorized as anti-Serb sentiment implicitly because that was indeed one of their overarching ideas and these actions were by and large the product of this general trend (ugh, that's as neutral as I can get describing such a bestial regime). But cherry-picking sources to throw in almost arbitrary pieces of history that precedes them by half a century - just isn't right.

For example, we're still missing here a description of exactly how the Pavelić crew managed to coopt so many of their compatriots into this sentiment to join the Ustaše militia. And I'm not talking about throwing in a counter-rant about the royal dictatorship and whatnot, but a neutral summary of what things looked like in Yugoslavia that explains just what the hell happened there. More specifically, the aforementioned article mentions indoctrination. What did that look like and what was its anti-Serb content? The 'wild Ustaše' were mentioned there, too. How did they come about and what was their anti-Serb agenda? Those are the things I'd expect to see in an article analyzing this term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well this is basically an article about a social phenomenon, so talking about broader social context to explain its origins and scholarly works which would single out specific events for us and the way they were linked (instead of throwing in a random list of sensationalist news reports) is essential. The anti-Serb policies of the Ustaše regime have probably been researched the most, but that has already been covered in a million other articles and covers a period of only four years. In terms of context I would like to find out more about the anti-Serb sentiment in Austria-Hungary preceding WW1 and the inter-war period (NB Starčević and Ustaše were Croatian right-wing extremists in the period leading up to WW2 but they were never a dominant political force - that spot was reserved for the more moderate Croatian Peasant Party). The period from 1945 to late 1980s is the most problematic as there is very little to write about in terms of Serbophobia. Which brings us to the 1990s and the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo war. I suppose something could be found about context of the period, especially in terms of economic underdevelopment of Yugoslavia in general and Kosovo in particular - which is where the whole 1990s thing started, which might be evidenced with some form of indoctrination and anti-Serb rhetoric in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. And btw I have no idea what "serbophobia as a sin" in communist Albania refers to. That should be elaborated. Timbouctou (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I do object to sources that don't place a particular event in a "Serbophobic" context. I have no problem with exploring the Austro-Hungarian elements where they are described as "Serbophobia" by RS, the clearly "anti-Serb" policies/propaganda of the Ustase etc, but the listing of a whole pile of more recent unconnected events without any RS describing them as being part of some "anti-Serb" project is a bridge too far IMO. The analysis of MacDonald then becomes particularly useful to the narrative, as it describes the use of "anti-Serb" events of the past as a justification for Serb aggression in the 1990s. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot written about those four years, but really not a lot about this indoctrination - or at least I haven't seen it. We've got the basic description of what the ideology was and what the final result was, but not that much in the way of how the sentiment transformed into actions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"2000s"

So, about this section... each item is individually sourced, but few seem to be notable enough, nor do they establish a clear pattern. Yes, Željko Kerum is a [censored description based on those sources] whose public position once had him cause a diplomatic incident - but will anyone mention him in a book? Most of this stuff seems like it's just giving publicity to [censored description based on those sources]. The article Far right in Croatia already has the same issue. A more clear example of this problem is the Pavelić monument story, which got practically no coverage, let alone traction, in Croatian mainstream press - I literally couldn't find a story about it on Večernji list or Jutarnji list web sites. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that unless a RS mentions an event and "Serbophobia" or "Anti-Serb sentiment" in the same context as the event, the whole section is a coatrack. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, they often do it implicitly. Some of those incidents are so egregious they just get reported near-verbatim. I think the real issue here is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sometimes we just really need a proper secondary source to cover a topic, and not assorted news reports. We need to link to a source saying how e.g. the behavior of the one-time Split mayor had a notable negative impact on the sentiment towards the Serbs. Him behaving like that doesn't necessarily have historical significance just because he got in the news for it. Heck, you could also say that by providing a bad example, he may have actually improved the state of the sentiment towards the Serbs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, hey, you are over the top now. All of those are reliable sources, and i find your attitude invalid for massive removal. And following the fact that this article is on DRN this removal is even bigger problem. You must gain valid consensus for this kind of removal. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We have had the rough consensus on this matter for months now, it's been discussed before. Nobody has provided a coherent argument to keep the laundry list (nor have you now). Please find better sources that cover these incidents. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not months, years. See my comment in Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment/Archive 2#Bias that went uncontested. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your first comments in this section and your words which refer to live people as "blatant chauvinist" and "jerks". Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Civility policies? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

These aren't arbitrary insults, they're sourced descriptions :) but hey, if it makes you happy, I've censored them now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

I wrote:

→‎Far-right controversy on the Croatian Wikipedia: this is only tangentially related to the article topic, and the referenced source doesn't support the synthesis - paragraph is already at Far right in Croatia

User:Anonimski wrote:

The section intersects with this topic on the basis that the controversy involved users that did Ustasa history revisionism, and (Balkan) Holocaust revisionism. There needs to be a more thorough discussion, blanking is a way too radical move.

I have no idea why this particular bit of historical revisionism would be relevant here. It didn't reflect only anti-Serbian sentiment, it reflected a violation of a bunch of more generic rules of an organization. There's no proof it reflected anything approaching a significant general anti-Serbian sentiment anywhere. Frankly, I'm concerned with this because it's a combination of navel gazing (just because this is Wikipedia that doesn't mean that anything that happens on Wikipedia is encyclopedic), and that we're practically promoting a bunch of anonymous people's fringe ideas this way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I should start by saying that I was the one who originally added the section, as it was an incident that went on for quite some time on a very well-visited webpage, and reached enough regional notoriety that a minister and several historians commented on it and condemned the group that participated in the activity. And there wasn't any claim about it being evidence of a "general" and widespread sentiment. Three rows of text (at least it's three on my resolution) together with a link to the page with more content about it, that wouldn't be undue weight in any way to an article of this size. - Anonimski (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So if it's not about a relevant anti-Serb sentiment, it doesn't have undue weight, it has no weight. The article shouldn't digress into any and every nutty incident vaguely related to its topic, otherwise we'll be back to the WP:SYNTH hodgepodge we previously had here. It's actually comforting that this issue only rose to the level of an incident that was summarily rebuked. Notice the level of detail at e.g. (History of) Antisemitism in the United States - it doesn't delve into every individual e.g. Klan anti-Semitic incident. (When thinking about this, I figured maybe the scale is different... but it's about a 10K+-member organization in a 200M+ country, and this Wikipedia incident was caused by less than 100 people in a country of 4M. It just doesn't make sense to apply different standards when the ratios are similar.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the section does anything to create the risk that the article would "digress into any and every nutty incident". And I can't agree on that it's vaguely related. Having some sourced statements on the topic from a statistical perspective would of course make the article better, although claiming that having a few example incidents would be WP:SYNTH is really stretching the definition too far, I don't see the subsection making any synthesis at all. One more thing, about that "navel gazing" concern earlier - the subsection is not really an overview of some local Wikipedia brawl but rather politicians' and historians' reaction to what was going on and how they viewed it. - Anonimski (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Joy. This article used to be a coatrack of minor incidents. My view is that this is of a piece with the sort of thing that was here before, and it really doesn't have any weight when looked at in the scope of the article, included its context across the centuries. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is because this article is being abused by biased entities looking to make the Serbian ethnic group appear as a victim through history. By such standards why doesn't every ethnic group in the Balkand have a bigotry page? Amazing that other such pages were removed yet this one still remains. Whitewashing history as well. There are hateful graffiti and racial chants about other groups. Should they not be represented? Wikipedia is a a place of scholar reviewed facts not opinio ated theories by random individuals. 2600:380:5A00:A957:435F:855A:CC4C:3442 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Are we editing based on how the article is and should be, or how it was and might become again? What do the 2+ year-old revisions of this article have to do with this debate anyway? - Anonimski (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it. Let's be perfectly clear - it is clearly important to say in this article that e.g. Frank made anti-Serb incidents a common occurrence, many decades before similar-minded people escalated that into a reign of terror. But it's not important to track each individual incident of his, and it's definitely not important to track each individual later incident that is not strictly related. Especially if those later incidents are handled differently, meaning we have little idea what kind of impact they might have decades later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's still not an attempt to track every individual incident, but rather to provide some examples on how the phenomenon can look like after the war, and how reactions have been to it even if they are different this time. For example, in the article Anti-Armenian sentiment, the incidents of the highest notability are definitively the ones ca. 100 years ago during the genocide, and it doesn't impact the article's informative quality negatively by citing examples of related lower-severity events that has happened later and in modern times. - Anonimski (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so back to the basics, where is the reference saying that the hr: wiki controversy was at least an indicative anti-Serbian incident? I don't see any such verbiage in the reference used here. It's an indicative incident of historical revisionism, which is much wider in scope. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The tendentious editors made attempts to rehabilitate the NDH and whitewash the crimes through revisionism, and this most definitively intersects this article's topic, it's not just tangential. I've added another news source that explicitly mentions that rhetoric targeting Serbs was used by the participants, so the section shouldn't really be a problem at all by now. - Anonimski (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

... and this article becomes a laundry list of every possible occasion where somebody disagreed with, or fought with, Serbs. Our old problems have returned. bobrayner (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

...Bobrayner... yeah, assertions such as "Hang Serbs from the willow trees!", "Serbien muss sterbien.", genocide against Serbs in WW2, and deportation of 350,000 Serbs (66% of their original population there) in crimes both Oluja and Bljesak is essentially are sort of disagreement with mere Serbian EXISTANCE, you got that right. Alex ^{discussion ★} 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ypu are using this talk page to agressively point out a perssion as anti-Serb? Also it was 150,000-200,000, don't use this as an excyse to inflate numbers. It is evident you have an agenda. 2600:380:5A6A:67:353A:57E8:6548:DA3C (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say any such thing, we were specifically talking about this one thing, please don't digress into flamewar mode. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He said "laundry list" - as if editors tried to insert notions of several instances of anti-Serb sentiment, and you say yourself that we are discussing "this one thing". The attribute "laundry" certainly doesn't add up to the overall non good faith tone of his - let's call it - comment (instead of, for example a rant, as you at least once happened to call other people's intentioned constructive comments). Also, I don't find one single concrete suggestion about what to do with the "issues" at hand (i.e. constructive criticism) in his... comment. Given the subject of this article and the very nature of sentiments behind the editors' affinity to contribute to it, I think a tad more farsighted approach would be a great deal helpful. At least more helpful than for example fuel up a flame-war by describing that contributors have some modes. For example: the choice of words should be carefully selected, with far less if any figures of speech - that is without words that could be interpreted differently than as intended. --biblbroks (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It becomes a laundry list if we keep this thing - once a precedent is set, it's fair to expect that people will keep piling on the same low-quality material. That's my good-faith reading of that sentence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it depends on the perspective... the so called POV. If you see it as low-quality material, doesn't mean that others do to. Also, if it is low-quality, it doesn't mean it has no quality. Your good faith is influenced by your perspective, others can't always afford to keep the good faith if it concerns them more than you, especially if they have different experiences - for example regarding this issue. Myself, for example, had probably a different reading from you of a comment by a Croatian contributor dealing with this same source at Talk:Croatian Wikipedia#English-language source. -biblbroks (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which one you mean - did you think GregorB's comment there was sarcastic, or that something was wrong with my reaction? They called me a part of the "pro-fascist ideologue" problem, which I had to protest against. I didn't have a general problem with the article, I was merely upset with the glaring factual error that had affected me personally.

In any event, the quality of this material, when compared to the rest of the article and even e.g. Anti-Armenian sentiment#Contemporary, seems so obviously lower that it's hardly a matter of judgement. One set of materials is comprehensive, based on a variety of secondary sources, with numerous unambiguous indicators of notability and relevance. The other is about a single recent issue that hasn't been covered by journals or books since it has transpired, such that would have clearly put it in this specific context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that GregorB's comment was sarcastic. Nor was there anything in any way wrong with your response, if they called you a part of the pro-fascist ideologue problem. Since I believe you weren't. So, the correction The Daily Dot made after your e-mail complaint is now in order with the factuality of your status regarding Croatian Wikipedia, right? Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the original version to compare with. Anyway, with my previous post I was just trying to point out that there was a Croatian editor who found the "How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history" stuff useful, but now I'm considering there's another possibility: that he was merely congratulating the other editor for contributing a link to the discussion. Especially since I think he mentioned beforehand that there was nothing particularly relevant published in English language related to the at that time ongoing issue with the CW article (thing called "2013 controversy about right wing bias" there). And, if the case is that he hadn't yet looked into the submitted material at the moment of his reply. But regardless, assuming good faith, my thinking is that he wouldn't indiscriminately labeled the submission of a link _very_ useful without at least glimpsing at what is behind it, since he is quite a seasoned contributor and that, I'd say, even if he had very good prior experience with Jayen466 and their contribution to Wikipedia. Of course, maybe this is just my particularly cautious POV at how an excellent Wikipedian should act in muddled situations. --biblbroks (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is essentially grasping for straws. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even all that interested in this article, yet I find myself getting very bored with the urges of some editors (just to be clear, this has been over a period of years, Anonimski's recent foray is just a paragraph in this novel) to add every single incident that ever happened where a Serb felt discriminated against. This is a well-known phenomena, and the artificial and frankly insulting attempt to equate the suffering of the Serbs in WWII with that of the Jews under Nazism (for example) as "equally victimised", is also well documented and has been substantially and IMO rightfully criticised and deconstructed. Just because a few people like Savich bang on about it doesn't mean it is a balanced and objective view of history (so far as that is possible). Serbs were treated very harshly by the Ottomans (who wasn't, really?), and the NDH attempted to expel, exterminate or convert hundreds of thousands of Bosnian and Croatian Serbs during WWII. Absolutely horrific, and more than noteworthy and deserving of proper and detailed coverage here and elsewhere. The Germans killed tens of thousands of Jews and Serbs (and others) in their occupied part of Serbia too. It was horrific and genocidal, but nowhere near as bad as the fringe-dwellers want people to believe. We still have people (usually IPs) regularly (ie yesterday) popping in to push the "700,000 Serbs killed at Jasenovac" nonsense somewhere on en WP. Blind Freddie knows that the academic consensus is that this figure is total unmitigated crap, yet people still pop in to push it, and it seems to always fall to non-Serbs to revert it. I have no doubt an examination of diffs on the Jasenovac article over the last three years will bear that out. The academic consensus is clear, no unbiased academic would deny it.

But this article always has the potential to turn into a "poor us, we're Serbs" thing, and that (and any other "poor us, we're Fooians" thing) isn't a positive thing for the encyclopedia. I'm getting quite sick of it after three years of dealing with it. I've no idea how others that have been here longer keep going... I've taken it off my watchlist for short periods in the past, but the usual suspects or their "klingons" always return and fill it full of a string of what are obviously racist incidents of extremely time-limited notability. I'm going to take it off my watchlist again, but someone has to keep an eye on this stuff if the encyclopedia is to remain reasonably credible. So no, I don't agree that this particular incident/event is relevant for this article, just as I didn't agree that every other incident/event that was here before was relevant. This is about an idea, an anti-Serb idea. All ideas are open for discussion and/or criticism. Those that say they aren't have a problem with academic discourse. This particular idea has either been covered by academic sources, or it hasn't. You can't make up for that by adding a laundry list of "incidents" sourced to the tabloid/yellow press. Bloody hell, if the Jews were to do a similar laundry list to the one that was here before, they would have a separate list of incidents for every month from 1933 to 1945, each one of which would exceed WP article size guidelines, and dwarf what was here before. Some extremely horrific and genocidal stuff happened to Serbs in WWII, but can we get some perspective here, please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The pro-deletion argumentation in this debate still represents a very odd and exceptionally narrow way to deal with an article in the "Anti-(ethnicity) sentiment" group. While discussing with User:Joy, I have linked to the Anti-Armenian sentiment article to show how a large number of other non-Balkan editors have dealt with a similar topic in another part of the world. I don't think that the political issues and controversies of the Balkans are so special and extraordinary that we need to have a separate set of norms and ideas on what to include in this type of article. - Anonimski (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't see the substantial difference between the Armenian article and this issue? Over there, e.g. in the Turkish section, we have clear examples of media- and state-backed animus, an assassination of a prosecuted journalist, a graph comparing anti-Armenian hate speech with others, etc. Do you honestly think that this compares with this fringe incident roundly criticized by the Croatian media and state? Heck, I can immediately think of a much more serious issue that could be called anti-Serbian sentiment - the protests against the Serbian Cyrillic signs - and that isn't even mentioned?! I maintain that describing the Wikipedia controversy in this context and in this manner (with its own section heading) is going to primarily be seen as navel-gazing by our English readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about adding a section about the rioters that smashed signs in the bilingual municipalities one day. Then the title could be more generalized, too. But I haven't made any draft for it, and I don't know what to do with the idea when I've seen that expanding this article with more recent content is met with such resistance just because they aren't comparable to the wartime issues. And I know that Armenians have much more intense problems in Turkey, but I brought up the article as an example of an article where smaller incidents in other regions have been described, apparently with a bit less trouble than here. Regarding the navel-gazing thing - I don't think that there's a risk for giving that kind of impression as long as we don't fill the article with info on Wikipedia conflicts. I simply thought it would be interesting to have this controversy included since it even catced the attention of a minister and made him comment on the content. Regarding the graphs you mentioned, I do think that the article would benefit in quality by refering to some statistical content as well, I've already mentioned it... - Anonimski (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my 2 cents then... The CW affair does not belong here. I'm too lazy to look it up so I could be wrong, but IIRC the only problematic quote in the CW affair that was actually related to the Serbs was that "their position in Croatia improved during WWII" or something to that effect, but that's not really anti-Serb sentiment, that's historical revisionism or even genocide denial, i.e. right up the "far-right" alley. Surprisingly, the article deals with the Šimunić incident (far-right, not really anti-Serb), yet ignores virtually countless incidents of actual anti-Serb chants heard during sports events. Most recent prominent example of that is just two days old: Slavko Goluža osudio ustaško skandiranje u Rijeci (in Croatian).

Biblbroks is correct in his interpretation of my comment: that was an English source which seemed well-informed, so I felt it could be useful. However, while quickly skimming the content I failed to notice that it had rather crudely misconstrued Joy's position on the CW controversy, making him appear almost like a pro-CW fanboy, which is completely false. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the crude misconstruation was modified afterwards, it would be useful to have the current position on the English language source, if apart from the stated inaccuracy it really was well-informed and IIUC Joy hadn't any problem with it. On another note, I fail to understand how "Za dom spremni" salute isn't "anti-Serb" but it does "incite racial hatred" (the wording taken from (blocked website) article] which was followed thru article's ref at [6]). Towards whom is then this hatred directed if not towards the enemies of the NDH regime whom the Ustaše were allegedly battling - some would say exterminating? --biblbroks (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article is reasonably correct. I don't agree with everything. (I could elaborate, but I suppose that's beside the point here.) It says that CW is "targeting Serbs", but does not supply an example. Generally, while to me there is no doubt that there is anti-Serb content there (hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj seals it for me), sources-wise this statement is pretty tenuous.

"Za dom spremni", in and of itself, does not really "incite racial hatred". (I could compare it to "Sieg heil". Is "Sieg heil" e.g. specifically anti-Semitic? It is not, although, of course, it is not really possible to completely dissociate it from anti-Semitism.) So no, "Za dom spremni" is not specifically anti-Serb. While it obviously does or could have anti-Serb connotations, it could also be said that it has e.g. anti-Semitic or anti-Roma connotations too.

Back to CW: both in terms of sources and in terms of actual impact, whatever the deal was with CW does not have 1/100 of magnitude of e.g. anti-Serb chants by Croatian "sports fans". While the latter is common knowledge and happens almost on a weekly basis, the former is highly obscure and I don't believe you'd find 5% of people who knew about it if you asked random passers-by in the street. CW stuff is both factually tenuous (with respect to this topic) and marginal in importance, so I'd say it does not pass the threshold of inclusion. GregorB (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it is still a narrow and exceptional way to treat an article in the "Anti-(ethnicity) sentiment" group. The Balkans is not such a special region that we need to invent new norms and disregard how other editors commonly treat pages of this type. And the incident is not too obscure since it got the attention of a minister as well as historians who publicly denounced the group that was responsible for using Wikipedia to spread their ideologically biased views (also mentioned earlier in the discussion).

Furthermore, it seems that we are reaching some sort of standstill in the debate, basically everything we're doing now is to repeat our views over and over again.

I've used the article about Armenians as an example earlier. Here's another, it's a list of attacks and vandalism related to antisemitism: Antisemitism_in_21st-century_France#Selected_acts_of_antisemitism. It would be ridiculous if anyone here would go and raise WP:SYNTH debates of this kind against every entry that describes lower-severity incidents against Jews and Armenians (such as vandalism), or call everything "laundry lists", etc. Yet, when dealing with info about the Balkans, it's suddenly seems like common practice. It's time to ask, are those other articles and lists out there results of abnormal conduct, or is the abnormality right here in how this topic has been treated so far?

This endless quarelling is hindering development of this article. There are more stuff that should be there, for example a few sentences of the ethnic tensions during the March 2004 unrest in Kosovo. Yet any editor who wants to expand this article with more examples becomes locked in a debate that takes days or weeks to resolve (if ever). This is not normal. - Anonimski (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to repeat myself, but I mentioned anti-Serb chants not for rhetoric effect, but because I actually think this topic could be legitimately included in the article. I understand your frustration over long-winded discussions, but why don't we make it simple and at least go for something that doesn't appear to be disputed? (I'd like to think these are Pareto optimal outcomes...) GregorB (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally can't support the removal of something just because its importance level is disputed somewhere. And what I dispute is the notion that a controversy about a group which systematically and persistently has seized control over hr.wikipedia in order to push biased views on unsuspecting people for quite some while, should somehow have lower notability than the chants of angry soccer spectators with far-right views. - Anonimski (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence, as attested by sources, of actual anti-Serb sentiment in the CW? Obviously the answer has to be "yes" for CW to be relevant here. I don't see evidence for this and I don't agree with the automatism of "far-right" = "anti-Serb", ergo "stuff to add to this article". That would make its scope ridiculously wide. Cf. e.g. Antisemitism in Europe that actually sticks to the topic, and does not turn it into Far right in Europe, a vastly bigger subject. GregorB (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Dailydot article, which I added a ref to later on in this discussion, mentions rhetoric targeting Serbs explicitly. Also, as the other articles I've linked to show, genocide denial can safely be treated as "Anti-(ethnicity) sentiment" and thus included in this type of article. - Anonimski (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I already noted that the Dailydot article provides no examples, and neither did the Croatian press IIRC (I believe I've followed the affair as close as anybody else), so this is rather tenuous. Not sure about the genocide denial - maybe it is passable, but barely.

I have nothing more to add. I still feel that the interests of the article would be better served if it concentrated on clear-cut rather than strained examples, but I won't interfere with its content one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason we're having endless discussions is simple - you refuse to discern what is important and notable from that which is not. The French article, arguably a laundry list itself as already noticed by several users at Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France, at least has a lot of generic, eminently notable content. This Wikipedia controversy is egregiously different. Continuing to argue this silliness is the time-wasting exercise that is preventing you from spending time on documenting actual anti-Serb sentiment. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes an axe is the best quality-improvement tool. The overinflated wikipedia-controversy is the most obvious piece of dead wood. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As this discussion has shown, there are multiple views on what's important and what's insignificant. For example, I cannot assign low importance to a scandal where a group has taken administrative control over an educational resource to insert biased content and genocide denial over a prolonged time. If we go by attention from politicians, media and others, then both this controversy as well as the far-right soccer spectator groups are notable. - Anonimski (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we assume that's true, you would still have a huge WP:UNDUE issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The group took control over hr.wikipedia to expose a large number of people to information which was described as biased, and it doesn't seem like this kind of description is based on a minority view, considering the reactions to the incident... - Anonimski (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And...? Still a tenuous connection, at best, to "Anti-Serb sentiment". bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeating a previous comment from the comparative example with how the Armenians' issues are presented (copy pasted): The pro-deletion argumentation in this debate still represents a very odd and exceptionally narrow way to deal with an article in the "Anti-(ethnicity) sentiment" group. While discussing with User:Joy, I have linked to the Anti-Armenian sentiment article to show how a large number of other non-Balkan editors have dealt with a similar topic in another part of the world. I don't think that the political issues and controversies of the Balkans are so special and extraordinary that we need to have a separate set of norms and ideas on what to include in this type of article. - Anonimski (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, you're not listening. There's nothing exceptional in following the policy on NPOV with regard to undue weight. Allow me to direct your attention to the very helpful subsection WP:BALASPS. It matches what we're seeing here almost to the letter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, you're the one that hasn't been listening (or to be more precise, hasn't been reading). I've already mentioned how 3 rows of text can't possibly give undue weight to an incident that reached notability as it involved a political takeover of a common educational tool, and got condemned by journalists, historians and at least one high-ranking politician. And it relates to this article due to the fact that ethnic bias and genocide denial was introduced and exposed to the public for a considerable amount of time. - Anonimski (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)