Talk:House of Flowers (mausoleum)

Name

In the time of Yugoslavia, the Slavic languages numbered three or four dependening how you count Serbian and Croatian. For Wikipedia purposes, it is fine to give Serbo-Croat followed by all its variations. The problem is when you start dishing out the rest of them. If Montenegrin is to be left out for any reason, that person had better explain himself what Bosnian is doing there because there was no Bosnian language in the Yugoslav constitution. Transliterations are important all across Wikipedia as non-Romanic scripts are unintelligible to most English speakers and this is why you have Romanised forms alongside main script pieces in other Cyrillic tongues, as well as Greek, Arabic, Persian, etc. That is not to suggest we go over the top with Serbian and place it in a "Latinic first - Latinic to represent language; Cyrillic later and marked as Cyrillic" system as that is wholly misleading, non-standard and most of all, plain wrong. I propose we use Serbo-Croat only at the top, and introduce a naming section farther down the page (like with Vojvodina settlements) where we can give all names and even consider adding Albanian and Hungarian. In all honesty, it is not essential reading for the intro and ones eyes will hurt before he gets to the main part. Evlekis (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In Hungarian, it's Virágház but I don't know about Albanian. Evlekis (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sh

There are no need to point that here, as this mausoleum is in Belgrade, where official language is Serbian. That may be used in some linguistic articles, but there are no need to remove Serbian from everywhere. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're just declaring "there's no need"? :) Actually there is need. This is the grave complex of the Yugoslav president, where exactly it happens to be located is utterly unimportant. All Yugoslav languages are relevant and are being used here. Rather than listing Bosnian, Montenegrin and Croatian alongside Serbian, Slovene, and Macedonian - we merge four entries into one. So there is need. Also I suggest you keep your nonsense conspiracy theories about "removing Serbian from everywhere" to yourself. Nothing is being "removed", since we're talking about the same damn language, and both Serbian and Croatian entries are being replaced (not "removed") with Serbo-Croatian. -- Director (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

ОК, let it stay. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbian = Serbo-Croatian. Lets not list the same language twice? Please? -- Director (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian is main language. BUT Serbian is local variant of those. Why should be remove it? Belgrade speaks Serbian, and not Serbo-croatian. Also, there is nothing wrong in listing several languages there, as Serbo-croation is not in official use there. You are reverted by numerous editors already in several articles. Please, leave it alone, none agreed to that in here, as it is not necessarily. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were some difference between the Serbian local variant and the Serbo-Croatian standard, you might have a point. Since that is not the case.. -- Director (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is differences, and there is no need to remove them, as sh is not official anymore, while others are. This is not improvement of the article, while agreement between you and user Evlekis on this page included sh, and all others. This is just plain POV pushing and disruptive editing. Including user PRODUCER, who again reverted, without and comment, or talk page participation. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian is official in the Balkans, it has four standards that use national names. And it is the scientific community that matters here on Wikipedia, not what governments proclaim. You've been told that when you tried to push this same POV at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Apparently not everything was made clear..

There are NO differences between "Kuća cveća" and "Kuća cveća". If the Serbian local standard had some other name that is different from the Serbo-Croatian standard name, then we might justify listing both translations. As it is, it is nonsense to list two identical translations of the same, identical language.

WhiteWriter, this is getting ridiculous. We cannot have four identical translations from the same language listed four times in the lead, and we will not have two identical translations from the same language listed twice. You've made your motives very clear in your first post, you just want to have "Serbian" in the lead. I don't have much more to say on this. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They are NOT identical. Кућа цвећа ≠ Kuća cvijeća! What are you talking about. Even that those are identical (and they are not) sh is officially defunct, while others are not. Why are you removing them? Wiki should be informative therefor, there is 0 reasons for us to remove them, and replace with defunct motherlanguage, that is not in official use anymore. Do you have ANY source that sh is in official use still? Where, in which country? And it is important for us what government tell us. This is not only about scientific world, but about entire world. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They are identical. "Кућа цвећа" is Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian is not "defunct", because the scientific community says it isn't. You should obey your government, but Wikipedia has no such obligation. This may come as a shock, but Wikipedia follows what the majority of scholarly sources have to say. That's it. The majority of scholarly sources. Not the Serbian government or the Croatian government, and I say thank goodness for that. You can phrase it as you like. -- Director (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Local official name

Per naming convention "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name."

Replacing alternative name on Serbian language with alternative names on ([Kuća cveća or Kuća cvijeća, Кућа цвећа] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); [Куќа на цвеќето, Kuća na cvećeto] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Slovene: Hiša cvetja) is violation of naming conventions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbian is a form of the Serbo-Croatian language spoken in Serbia. Serbo-Croatian is the local language. I'm not going to repeat the whole song and dance a fourth time, you know where to make your protests. Kindly refrain from discussing this matter here. -- Director (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The official language in Serbia (which currently includes Belgrade) is Serbian language, not Serbo-Croatian.

Don't violate naming conventions and don't repeat the same argument without convincing people because it is a form of tendentious editing. Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, and yes. You are disturbing wikipedia to point your POV. And we should talk here about this article. Also, i would love to see consensus to replace all of those three articles into only one. Without it, you are just pushing. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are all indeed forms of the Serbo-Croatian language as backed by the consensus of reliable scholarly sources on the subject. Unless you can prove otherwise Serbo-Croatian stays and the redundancies leave. I'm afraid your wikilawyering doesn't stand. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, like refusal to "get the point" is a form of disruptive editing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, what you and your government call Serbian, scientists around the world call "Serbo-Croatian". Serbian is Serbo-Croatian. It is the same language. Serbian is "official" you say? Well, that doesn't matter to us here, but even if it did, all that means is that a standard of the Serbo-Croatian language is official in Serbia. As far as linguists are concerned, the language you speak, and the language that is official in Serbia - is Serbo-Croatian. Ok? Do you understand? Or should I post it for the tenth time? For future reference: the position of the Serbian government is 100% completely irrelevant. I hope you will be able to remember that too from now on.

As for all that impressive wikilawyering (complete with fake talkpage warnings), WP:POINT of course has nothing to do with this - but ironically, WP:TE actually fits perfectly with what you fellows are doing. What's the difference you ask, well here it is:

"The official language of Serbia is Serbian (Serbo-Croatian). [...] The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnical grounds. [...] the language that used to be officially called Serbo-Croat has gotten several new ethnically and politically based names. Thus, the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2 ed., 2006.)

"The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnic grounds. [...] the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." (Brown 2006, p. 294.)

"Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian." (Fortson p.431)

etc... These are, of course, just a few quotes. As WhiteWriter knows full well, you will find another dozen sources have been carefully listed at the Serbo-Croatian and Serbian articles. What you are doing is tendentious, disruptive editing for the sake of pushing what is blatantly a nationalist POV.

WhiteWriter you have just insterted a language, and four standards of the same language, in the lede of this article. Its pure nationalist nonsense, and it will not stand. If none of you have any objections, I shall move this discussion to Talk:Serbo-Croatian. -- Director (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I object. This discussion is related to this article content, and not Serbo-Croatian. You are ignoring our line. The official language in Serbia (which currently includes Belgrade) is Serbian language, not Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian do exist, nobody dispute that, but that is not "official language" of the territory. There is no rule that we must not include local version, local official variant of language, name of the object that exist in Belgrade, Serbia, where official language is ONLY Serbian version, and not Serbo-Croatian. That is not wrong, and you are making it so! --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Per naming convention "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name."
• The official language in Serbia (which currently includes Belgrade) is Serbian language, not Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian....
• The official language is defined by the Constitution of Serbia approved by majority of citizens of Serbia on Serbian constitutional referendum, 2006. Not by me, by government or by anybody else.

Closing statement: According to the naming convention the alternative name used in this article should be the local official language — Serbian.

• I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my closing in the closing statement, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You DIREKTOR are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. Frankly, my opinion is that you are taking this whole matter far, far too seriously, and the best advice I can give you is to take at least one or two steps back from the issue. There are disputes that are worth fighting over (where crucial issues of neutrality or other core values of the project are concerned), but I really don't see how this case is among them. . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WW. You object? :) Didn't you just request a consensus on this issue in general? If this nonsense continues we'll simply have to carry it over there, whether you want to follow or not. Look, in articles that require all four standards to be listed (usually those are articles directly related to Yugoslavia) it is necessary to make it clear what the other Yugoslav nations call the subject. As such it is only logical not to represent Serbo-Croatian indirectly through five redundant identical entries with identical translations in the same language, but to use just one entry for the language. It is absolute nonsense to have the same translations in the same language listed five or six times - as in your version.

@Antidiskriminator. It is not a question of me or you disagreeing, and its not a question of personal opinion in general - its the sources and Wikipedia consensus that disagree with you. I agree, though, there isn't much to add. As I said above, there is simply no way I can agree to have the same translations in the same language listed five or six times. If you have any doubts regarding Serbian being merely one of four versions of the same language, then we can all stroll hand-in-hand to Talk:Serbo-Croatian and be buried in sources. Though perhaps you are of the conviction that these languages and standards are all really "Serbian" and should be written in Serbian Cyrillic exclusively [1]?

I will repeat once again, however, that the naming convention you quote for some strange reason has absolutely nothing to do with this issue at all: Serbian is a form of Serbo-Croatian, and is listed first in the lede. And please refrain from repeating the completely irrelevant positions of the Serbian government - you are merely demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the functioning of Wikipedia. Please read the policies of this project before editing: its only what sources say that concerns us ("Thus, the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language"). -- Director (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

" Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language"? Then go merge article on those languages and come back.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That was discussed, yes, but it was determined there's need. The Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin articles are not articles on separate languages, but articles on the four standards of the Serbo-Croatian language. There are many articles on various aspects of the Serbo-Croatian language (like the separate dialects Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, etc.) -- Director (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per that same logic there is no need to merge all four standards into sh. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Serbian language, Croatian language, Bosnian language, and Montenegrin language articles are not articles on separate languages? Then go rename them and come back.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahahaa, yes, even better argument, Antid. Exactly! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha, amusing. "Serbian language", "Croatian language", etc. is of course the name of the standard, no other name wold be appropriate. Shall we conclude these games of yours? -- Director (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing amusing in violating wikipedia guidelines. If you believe that Croatian language is not language but standard go rename it to Croatian standard and come back. Until then wikipedia guidelines should be followed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the standard is "Croatian language", as the sources state, and I don't support any other name. No guidelines have been violated, the very thought is laughable. But you're right: there's nothing amusing here. I think I'll be taking a break from this fascinating exercise. There's nothing more to add.

P.s. (noticed continuation of edit-war) the article will neither be vandalized by your removal of all non-Serbian Yugoslav languages, nor will there be five or six entries for the same language with the same identical translation. That said, I do not intend to play the edit-warring game. That was my last revert. The sources have been listed here, you have elected to ignore them and continue your campaign. Should this absolute nonsense continue we'll proceed in the proper venue. I've had enough of this. -- Director (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you are refraining, you will not edit this again, your last edit, etc,etc... We have heard that numerous times already, and nobody believes you anymore. At least i dont. You are just waiting few more days, so you can edit war again. I have reported you therefor. It looks like that you are not able to compromise, or edit in a normal way, without edit warring. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. There is one language, Serbo-Croation. There is no such thing as a separate "Serbian" language. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Language and script Article 10 Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia. --WhiteWriter^speaks

(From now on I shall simply copy-paste from the above discussion.) "Please refrain from repeating the completely irrelevant positions of the Serbian government - you are merely demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the functioning of Wikipedia." -- Director (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One who repeats the same argument without convincing people is engaged in tendentious editing which is "is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking". Don't do it anymore. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you WhiteWriter for presenting the ultimate source for the official language. If there are users who believe that official language should be some other language this is not the place for that kind of discussion. Instead those users should follow the appropriate procedure for changing the name of the official language and:

1. organize successful referendum in Serbia, like in case of Serbian constitutional referendum, 2006, and change the Constitution of Serbia by replacing "non-existing" official Serbian language with Serbo-Croatian
2. wait for the National Assembly of Serbia to officially proclaim this constitution
3. come back here and replace Serbian language with Serbo-Croatian.
4. support such change with a inline citation which proves that official language is changed to Serbo-Croatian

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would be ridicilus to expect that you could replace the official Serbian language with Macedonian, Slovenian or Serbo-Croatian in Constitution of Serbia. I think there is probably an easier alernative way. You can change wikipedia guidelines. Go change wikipedia guidelines to request replacing of all alternative names on Serbian language with Macedonian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian.... Then come back here and follow the changed guideline. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You can call Serbo-Croatian "Martian" and it would still be Serbo-Croatian. You can change Romanian to bastardized Cyrillic and brainwash an entire people to the point they genuinely believe a Romanian can't understand their "Moldovan" language, but it's still Romanian. The alphabet used is irrelevant, a language is the language it is. Let's stay away from useless government proclamations as being scholarly determinants of language. These are all the same people separated by acts of genocide based on religion, not any difference in ethno-linguistic heritage. Pretending Serbs have a different heritage and language is what is grossly POV here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)