Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment/Archive 3
Latest comment: 5 months ago by ÆRTI in topic Biased source
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Serb sentiment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Bulgarian destruction of Archibald Reiss urn
Archibald Reiss was a criminologists who extensively documented crimes commited by German, Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops against Serbs during WWI. He died in 1929 and the urn containing his heart was located on Kajmakčalan. Bulgarians destroyed it in WWII. The incident should be included in the article in my view. Are there any suggestions or opposition? FkpCascais (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am against emphasizing this incident, but I support brief inclusion of activities of Reiss.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Anti-Serb sentiment
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anti-Serb sentiment's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Gumkowski":
- From Untermensch: Gumkowski, Janusz; Leszczynski, Kazimierz; Robert, Edward (translator) (1961). Hitler's Plans for Eastern Europe (First ed.). Polonia Pub. House. p. 219. ASIN B0006BXJZ6. Archived from the original (Paperback) on 9 April 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
The category of sub-human (Untermensch) included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gypsies and Jews.
{{cite book}}:|first3=has generic name (help);|work=ignored (help) - From Racism: Gumkowski, Janusz; Leszczynski, Kazimierz; Robert, Edward (translator) (1961). Hitler's Plans for Eastern Europe (First ed.). Polonia Pub. House. p. 219. OCLC 750570006. Archived from the original (Paperback) on 2011-04-09. Retrieved March 12, 2014.
{{cite book}}:|first3=has generic name (help);|work=ignored (help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The """Criticism and Controversy""" section is literally anti-serb
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-semite or anti-german sentiment. So why should there be one here? This section(criticism and controversy) is malicious, mainly because the previous sections prove otherwise, such as jasenovac (austwitz from yugoslavia against serbs and jews) and srbojesk (cutthroatr of Serbs) is proof that this section is malicious and insane, with nazi-basis, and negationist and essentially anti-serbian. what's next, deny the holocaust?JohnGotten (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is there because it is a strong thread in the reliable sources. If you delete it again, I will not hesitate to block you under discretionary sanctions (see warning on your talk page). The only way to have it removed from the article is to gain consensus here on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that a reasonable argument could be made for the removal of the section under WP:UNDUE. Just because something is found in RS, it doesn't mean it has to be included in an article. "Criticisms" and "controversies" sections are also generally frowned upon per WP:CRIT:
In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections.
- In this case, the best thing to do is probably to integrate this criticism into the "Breakup of Yugoslavia" section. --Griboski (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's undue, agreed and it seems like making excuses and "arguments" for anti-Serbian sentiment that is - hate speech and more. It should be cleaned up and included in the rest of the text. Milosevic's clash with Slovenian politicians? It's a joke. It also can't stand per WP:CRITICISM. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this section is needed because of "Anti-Serb sentiment" perception in Serbia(creating some sort of myth out of it), and because a lot of sources talk about it. I don't see that this informations would belong to any other article and it is obviously not in contradiction with the article itself because it is part of Anti-Serb sentiment. If the institutions of some country or intellectuals of that country encourage opinion and create a "myth" about that then it is a common factual matter that should be presented in this article. Mikola22 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no myth. Only some sources call it "a myth". Thanks for your opinion though. The hate and bias is very real, and very bad, to say the least, don't you agree? I think that you can understand that, generally speaking. Thanks, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Articles with "some sources" for conformation also exist, but that's not a reason to delete all these articles. You can always find some new source which confirms this "myth" so that this section had as many sources as possible. Mikola22 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no myth. Only some sources call it "a myth". Thanks for your opinion though. The hate and bias is very real, and very bad, to say the least, don't you agree? I think that you can understand that, generally speaking. Thanks, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that this section is needed because of "Anti-Serb sentiment" perception in Serbia(creating some sort of myth out of it), and because a lot of sources talk about it. I don't see that this informations would belong to any other article and it is obviously not in contradiction with the article itself because it is part of Anti-Serb sentiment. If the institutions of some country or intellectuals of that country encourage opinion and create a "myth" about that then it is a common factual matter that should be presented in this article. Mikola22 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's undue, agreed and it seems like making excuses and "arguments" for anti-Serbian sentiment that is - hate speech and more. It should be cleaned up and included in the rest of the text. Milosevic's clash with Slovenian politicians? It's a joke. It also can't stand per WP:CRITICISM. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've moved the content into the appropriate section with some light copy-editing. Both MacDonald and Bennett are essentially talking about how past victimizations were weaponized to justify nationalist policies starting in the mid-1980s and into the 90s. Criticism and controversies sections should be avoided. They are not encyclopedic and bring negative attention to the topic.
- I think that a reasonable argument could be made for the removal of the section under WP:UNDUE. Just because something is found in RS, it doesn't mean it has to be included in an article. "Criticisms" and "controversies" sections are also generally frowned upon per WP:CRIT:
- I've also removed the part about "association with Jewish suffering is probably linked to the Croatian death camp" as the source does not say that and it is a WP:SYNTH of material. MacDonald writes about the Serb-Jewish association made by Serbian intellectuals and writers through ancient history, not Jasenovac. --Griboski (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "Criticism and controversies" sections should remand and all information's which are sourced. With this(new) edit the meaning of that myth is lost or reduced and blurred. Mikola22 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CRIT. It's always best to integrate criticism or controversy sections into an article. They are problematic, lead to coat-racking and needless edit-warring and conflict. The content is still there, tied into the breakup of Yugoslavia. --Griboski (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I sad that in my opinion this section is "not in contradiction with the article" ie this section do not violate the NPOV. This doesn't mean I'm right but that's my opinion explained above. Mikola22 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CRIT. It's always best to integrate criticism or controversy sections into an article. They are problematic, lead to coat-racking and needless edit-warring and conflict. The content is still there, tied into the breakup of Yugoslavia. --Griboski (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "Criticism and controversies" sections should remand and all information's which are sourced. With this(new) edit the meaning of that myth is lost or reduced and blurred. Mikola22 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've also removed the part about "association with Jewish suffering is probably linked to the Croatian death camp" as the source does not say that and it is a WP:SYNTH of material. MacDonald writes about the Serb-Jewish association made by Serbian intellectuals and writers through ancient history, not Jasenovac. --Griboski (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The section unequivocally violates WP:UNDUE, WP:CRIT, and WP:NPOV. It is particularly worrying, even dangerous if it is done in the context of the relativization of racist and discriminatory policies. Try to imagine that there is a separate section in the articles on antisemitism and the Holocaust that describes the missuse of these events for propaganda or political purposes, for example in the case of the Israeli-Arab conflict. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- It absolutely is not. It is not relativisation. There are completely legitimate and mainstream criticisms of the use of the idea of anti-Serb sentiment by Serbs to do a number of things, including downplaying the wrongdoing of Serbs, self-victimhood, to justify certain behaviours, and other actions and statements. In order to be comprehensive, it must have such a section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with PM67, victimhood has long been used by the Balkan states as a tool of legitimization of their own similar activity and bibliography has extensively discussed these aspects. @Peacemaker67: maybe you could expand that section.
- It absolutely is not. It is not relativisation. There are completely legitimate and mainstream criticisms of the use of the idea of anti-Serb sentiment by Serbs to do a number of things, including downplaying the wrongdoing of Serbs, self-victimhood, to justify certain behaviours, and other actions and statements. In order to be comprehensive, it must have such a section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Side comment: The actual Serb families which have experienced victimhood and have lost their beloved ones in the Yugoslav wars (civilian casualties) quite often have participated in acts of solidarity towards other communities. Ideological self-victimization as a means of legitimization of some horrible actions is almost solely part of state or parastate groups and policies. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with everything you wrote about self-victimization and ideological abuse, but the article is not about that. If someone has misused some term and manipulated feelings, it should be described in an article of propaganda during wars and specific political or military figures.
- There is a tendency from a group of authors to present all crimes against Serbs as so-called revenge attacks, the destruction of medieval cultural heritage as "decolonization", one of the deadliest genocides in response to "hegemony", and there is a page about discrimination against Serbs that turned into a completely opposite topic. These are double standards. There are many who claim that the position of victims of sexism or discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS is being misused, so it goes without saying that it would not be humane and decent to include such an "other side" in articles. Also, there is almost no word on the victimization narrative of Albanian and Bosnian nationalists since the 1990s. Of course, there are a lot of sources about that as well, but I'm glad that no one dared to relativize such things.
- There have been many difficult and sad moments in history, but from many tendentiously edited articles it can be concluded that only Serbs are biologically constructed to be evil and that when they are victims, they are to blame for it. I'm afraid that such racist prejudices should have no place on Wikipedia. After all, violations of many policies are again ignored. Everyone should pay attention to WP:UNDUE, WP:CRIT, WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV.:--WEBDuB (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus was not reached and I agree with @Peacemaker67: on this. There was no consensus to move with the change. Yet it was done so anyway. I have no problem with escalating this to the admins. There is no expiration or time alot for when a wrong is made right. Pitiful excuse to revert me. OyMosby (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don’t get why it’s a heading under Yugoslav Wars as apposed to the long standing separate section as it deals with historical battles and such.OyMosby (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus was not reached and I agree with @Peacemaker67: on this. There was no consensus to move with the change. Yet it was done so anyway. I have no problem with escalating this to the admins. There is no expiration or time alot for when a wrong is made right. Pitiful excuse to revert me. OyMosby (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Reactivation of old sections
I have analyzed some old editions, and I see that they are necessary for the article.
e.g.: Holocaust denial against Serbs is still visible on Croatian wikipedia, trying reduce extermination camps to children playgrounds
e.g.: Croatia Far-Right Revisionism, denialism and hatred against serbs
e.g.: Alleged and Serbophobes
examples:
a. go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Serbs_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia .
go to language section, and select "hvratski" .
and you will see one exemple of Holocaust denial, Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia and Genocide denial that persists today.
b. related news and sites that prove it
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Wikipedia&oldid=983689658
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/croatia-rewrite-holocaust-crimes-out-of-history
https://www.b92.net/eng/news/region.php?yyyy=2018&mm=08&dd=31&nav_id=104972
JohnGotten (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can go to the Serbski version of articles related to Chetnik Crimes and such and see some revisionism. That isn’t a valid RS for editing on Wikipedia. More than half the intro pf this article focuses on the Ustashe and Croats which seems like a WP:WEIGHT issue. Also I see massive section on Croatia or Croat related figures and topics and denial already in this article. To the point of again WEIGHT issues. Might as well change the title of the article to “Anti - Serbian Sentiment by Croats and some other groups”. So I fail to see how there isn’t a denial section. Which this article isn’t supposed to be about. Nor is the Holocaust, the extermination of Jews relevant to this article. Most of the page focuses on the Ustashe and contemporary Croats, so I question again, how could anything more be missing? Did you not see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Serb_sentiment#Croatia OyMosby (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Croatia or NDH?
Between 200,000 and 500,000 Serbs were killed in Croatia[1]
- I gees NDH is in question not Croatia. If that number is only for Croatia, then how many were killed in NDH(with Bosnia, etc)? Mikola22 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it should say NDH instead of Croatia. Žerjavić gives a total of ~200,000 Serb deaths for the whole of NDH. Yeomans gives a 500,000 max for the Ustaše alone. Approximately 300,000-350,000 is generally the figure given by historians though (see Genocide of Serbs article). I just wanted to remove the exaggerated 700,000 figure for the NDH. --Griboski (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. OyMosby (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Fake balancing?
I should go with undo, but no matter, @Mikola22: what you are doing is "fake balancing" and if you want to bring "more balance" you should be more careful with wording. We can work on it here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sadko: You undo informations which exist in the sources. I don't know what you don't understand? Information that exists in the sources are entered into the article because we have respect the whole context and not just parts of the context. I'll have to bring it back. Mikola22 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- THat is not how TP works. If you continue to edit-war, nothing will be included. Assume good faith. What you are doing is textbook fake balancing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- 1 top Croat officials have boycotted the official state commemoration for the victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp because, as they said, Croatian authorities refused to denounce the Ustasha legacy explicitly and they downplayed and revitalized crimes committed by Ustashe. Additional information from same source "by equating these crimes with the communist crimes from 1945" is fake balancing, explain to me why?
- 2 Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian. whole information from the source "after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95), several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testify that some young Serbs have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism and changed their surnames in order to "become Croats"." Where is here fake balancing?
- 3 In the same year there were protests in several Croatian cities against introducing Serbian language and Cyrillic script as official in Vukovar. In the source are not mentioned "several Croatian cities" and reason for this protest stated in the source "because according to organisers there must be shown "sign of respect for the sacrifice Vukovar has made"." is fake balancing. Where is here fake balancing?
- 4 The US State Department, has warned about pro-Ustashe and anti-Serb sentiment in Croatia. Added information from the same source "in the report for 2016". Where is here fake balancing?
- 5 The Croatian usage of the Ustashe salute Za dom spremni, the equivalent of Nazi salute Sieg Heil, is not banned. It is frequently used by Croatian nationalists and sports fans. In the source is not mentioned "Croatian nationalists" and "sports" and this is information of Ivan Zvonimir Čičak in which he mentioned football fans and Ustashe salute with communist iconography as same problem in Croatia. "According to Ivan Zvonimir Čičak, Croatian usage of the Ustashe salute Za dom spremni, the equivalent of Nazi salute Sieg Heil, is not banned, along with other communist iconography. This salute according to him is frequently used by football fans." Where is here fake balancing?
- 6 Among derogatory terms for Serbs are "Vlachs" (Власи / Vlasi) used by Croats, Source mentioned rebellion in early 20th century and using of this term in Hrvatsko Zagorje. "Among derogatory terms for Serbs are "Vlachs" (Власи / Vlasi) which was used mainly in Hrvatsko Zagorje during rebellion in the early 20th century." :@Sadko: Where is here fake balancing? Mikola22 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep it short and please WP:Don't bludgeon the process, which was mentioned to you several times before. I shall reply once you answer more on the point and with less text. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sadko: You have my six edits with numbers, and now eplane for ich edit(number) where is my fake balancing? If you don't do it I will restore informations according to the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the info. you are proposing is not needed and it's WP:UNDUE. Added info. is not improving the material or adding that much context, except for number 2. For example, 6 makes no sense or very little sense. Another thing, if there is an open debate, you CAN NOT impose any sort of ultimatum, it's not acceptable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sadko: When you will ask me something and in this question is 100 numbers, give me a couple of days and I'll answer on all this 100 numbers(questions), therefore answer me to each of these 6 numbers. Please don't sell me fog. Thanks for understanding. Mikola22 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the info. you are proposing is not needed and it's WP:UNDUE. Added info. is not improving the material or adding that much context, except for number 2. For example, 6 makes no sense or very little sense. Another thing, if there is an open debate, you CAN NOT impose any sort of ultimatum, it's not acceptable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sadko: You have my six edits with numbers, and now eplane for ich edit(number) where is my fake balancing? If you don't do it I will restore informations according to the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- For example, 6 makes no sense or very little sense. I don't understand what doesn't make sense. This is information from a source. Explain in more detail. Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Fake balancing". This is an excuse to whitewash the fact that there is a lot of criticism of the weaponisation of "anti-Serb sentiment", which must be included in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think you read this talk section. It has nothing to do with the weaponization of Anti-Serb sentiment. Sadko's just pointing out for example, this edit which added "communist crimes", hyperlinked to the Bleiburg reparations. There's a tendency in Croatian nationalist circles to downplay/deny Ustaše crimes and emphasize Partisan atrocities, as well as equating communism with fascism. I think he was concerned there was a balancing being done in terms of attempting to minimize Anti-Serb sentiment with these edits but I personally don't see an issue with any of these changes since they appear to be in line with the sources. --Griboski (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Agree with PM67, there is no fake balancing. @Griboski: All states in the Balkans have the remarkable ability to both instrumentalize human suffering and never actuallly provide justice for those who suffered. The key word is "all". But wasn't there another discussion about this topic just a month ago? It feels like every month another Serbia-related dispute which was discusssed in the very recent past restarts with the same arguments, reverts, edits.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course. There is a tendency for Croatian ultranationalist circles who downplay/deny Ustashe atrocities and Serbian ultranationalists circles to downplay/deny Chetnik atrocities, and so on Bosniak, Albanian etc. All over the Balkan territories its a problem with such fringe groups. A hopefully dying trend or breed.... OyMosby (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Griboski: I had thought that info was lost in the movement and condensing of the section. If it is unsourced than you made the right call.OyMosby (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Of course. There is a tendency for Croatian ultranationalist circles who downplay/deny Ustashe atrocities and Serbian ultranationalists circles to downplay/deny Chetnik atrocities, and so on Bosniak, Albanian etc. All over the Balkan territories its a problem with such fringe groups. A hopefully dying trend or breed.... OyMosby (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- After looking at it more closely, there are a couple of things, not necessarily related to the objections raised here.
- @Peacemaker67: Agree with PM67, there is no fake balancing. @Griboski: All states in the Balkans have the remarkable ability to both instrumentalize human suffering and never actuallly provide justice for those who suffered. The key word is "all". But wasn't there another discussion about this topic just a month ago? It feels like every month another Serbia-related dispute which was discusssed in the very recent past restarts with the same arguments, reverts, edits.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- On #2: I don't see why we have to quote what the footnote says. The book is scholarly and the author says, "Facing continued demonization and discrimination in Croatia, large number of younger Serbs have converted to Catholicism in order to become Croats and have changed their more obvious Serbian names to Croatian ones." (p.14)
- On #5: "Za Dom Spremni" is not banned. We don't need to attribute that to the author. It is permissible in certain cases. I've added supporting references, as well as to the fact that it has been used in football matches. I don't see the point in mentioning communist iconography either. --Griboski (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Griboski:#2 Because this information doesn’t exist anywhere in the scholarly books, and it is fringe information. Also for such claims we need more books which prove it because it is big historical fact. In footnote is original information from some journalist about "several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb which testify that some young Serbs have converted to Catholicism and changed their surnames in order to become Croats".
- For #5, in Croatia is also problem promotion of communism and communist symbols and this source also speak about that. If you want to promote that the only Ustashaism is a problem in Croatia then promote it I have nothing against it but if this source exists then we need to quote the whole context and not one part of the source. Mikola22 (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: and @Griboski: The recent additions to an already extremely long Croatia section seems a bit like coatracking. Now it’s even longer. Should every event be added? No other section seems so long and extensive. And why remove “ According to Ivan Zvonimir Čičak” when stating a person’s viewpoint? Also the last two new additions are both about bigotry at soccer games. And is “ Ustashe salute” and symbology not outlawed?OyMosby (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also “ In 2013 it was reported that a group of right-wing extremists had taken over the Croatian Wikipedia, editing mostly articles related to the Ustashe, whitewashing their crimes, and articles targeting Serbs.” as well as listing facebook post controversies and every instance of bigotry seems like coatracking. The section needs slimming down considerably. Again seems like just listing events than an analysis of anti Serb sentiment in Croatia. OyMosby (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In this section we mostly have informations from newspaper black chronicle sections. If most of editors think that this is ok then we will probably have an even longer section with every international report for a particular year, private quarrels in cafes, personal posts of private persons on Facebook and gmails, individual graffiti in side streets etc. Mikola22 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of it just seems undue, and not very “balanced”. It needs serious reconstruction and restructuring which I don’t even know how or where to begin. And I’m afraid of being labeled bised or anti - Serb myself. Also readers will skim this section if it is so long and tediouse. It should be concise and about an general analysis of anti-Serb sentiments in Croatia. Usually with cited sources saying it was an anti-Serb act notnwhat we perceive to be anti Serb. Though the soccer ones obviously are with the salutes and shouting “kill Serbs”. But then should every anti-blank page list all examples and events or instances? Is their a guideline? AgainI ask you three, Peacemaker, Griboski and Mikola. OyMosby (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose that Peacemaker is responsible here or someone in his rank for this problems. In Serbia also sing "kill Croats" but I do not see that this information exist in Anti-Croat sentiment article, or burning Croatian flags in stadiums, etc. Comparing these two articles as far as I can see in this article we have quite a black chronicle informations. Mikola22 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of it just seems undue, and not very “balanced”. It needs serious reconstruction and restructuring which I don’t even know how or where to begin. And I’m afraid of being labeled bised or anti - Serb myself. Also readers will skim this section if it is so long and tediouse. It should be concise and about an general analysis of anti-Serb sentiments in Croatia. Usually with cited sources saying it was an anti-Serb act notnwhat we perceive to be anti Serb. Though the soccer ones obviously are with the salutes and shouting “kill Serbs”. But then should every anti-blank page list all examples and events or instances? Is their a guideline? AgainI ask you three, Peacemaker, Griboski and Mikola. OyMosby (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Mikola22: For #2 how do you propose re-wording it then? This earlier work also mentions the conversion of Serbs post-war to Catholicism. For #5 I disagree as revitalization of Ustaše is the relevant aspect for this article.
- @OyMosby: The Za Dom Spremni chant is not legally banned. It's not opinion and we don't need to attribute it to the person who wrote the article. The Sven Milekic article I added backs it up that is allowed under special circumstances. The 2016 soccer match is a prime example of Anti-Serb sentiment and unlike maybe some other content, is backed by that terminology in the source. The Croatian Wikipedia controversy made news headlines in the Balkans, in part for its bias against Serbs. To be fair, the Croatia section is the longest because Anti-Serb sentiment is probably most prominent there. --Griboski (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- ” To be fair, the Croatia section is the longest because Anti-Serb sentiment is probably most prominent there.” More so than Kosovo or in Bosnia? Even if this is true it seems huge listimg every single modern event. It’s bigger than the Ustashe section by over three times. I do agree the section could use some improvement. Maybe you can suggest on what to remove/edit and it can be discussed here. --Griboski (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I’M amazed it isn’t banned, wow.... However I said I don’t disagree about the chants at soccer matches part, that is obvious anti-Serb rhetoric. “Za dom Spremni” if directed towards Serbs would be anti Serb for sure yes, but chanted during football matches in general, that is neonazism unless again if it was directed at Serbs. A lot of what is written wasn’t specifically by you. It’s a running issue with many anti-blank pages. But I do know on other anti-blank articles coatrackingbis being removed. As for why it is the longest it could also depend on how much information is being looked into for other sections. It’s possible Croatia is being more scrutinized under a microscope in this article. (Not by you but in general) Are we to list every instance and every case? It still seems like a possible case of WP:UNDUE. @Peacemaker67: thoughts being you have a lot of experience with these areas? I feel that any edit I make will be labeled vandelism or anti-Serb agenda edits. Again why remove “ According to Ivan Zvonimir Čičak” when stating a person’s viewpoint? Also the Croatia Albania match controversy is said twice in then article. Once under Croatia and once under the contemporary heading. As for you explanation of why the Croatia section isnso lomg, I find it odd the Kosovo section to be far smaller. OyMosby (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- “ At a football game between Kosovo and Croatia played in Albania in October 2016, the fans together chanted murderous slogans against Serbs.” and then later “ A 2016 World Cup qualifying match between Kosovo and Croatia was marred with Anti-Serb chants such as "Kill the Serbs"”
- I’M amazed it isn’t banned, wow.... However I said I don’t disagree about the chants at soccer matches part, that is obvious anti-Serb rhetoric. “Za dom Spremni” if directed towards Serbs would be anti Serb for sure yes, but chanted during football matches in general, that is neonazism unless again if it was directed at Serbs. A lot of what is written wasn’t specifically by you. It’s a running issue with many anti-blank pages. But I do know on other anti-blank articles coatrackingbis being removed. As for why it is the longest it could also depend on how much information is being looked into for other sections. It’s possible Croatia is being more scrutinized under a microscope in this article. (Not by you but in general) Are we to list every instance and every case? It still seems like a possible case of WP:UNDUE. @Peacemaker67: thoughts being you have a lot of experience with these areas? I feel that any edit I make will be labeled vandelism or anti-Serb agenda edits. Again why remove “ According to Ivan Zvonimir Čičak” when stating a person’s viewpoint? Also the Croatia Albania match controversy is said twice in then article. Once under Croatia and once under the contemporary heading. As for you explanation of why the Croatia section isnso lomg, I find it odd the Kosovo section to be far smaller. OyMosby (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- In this section we mostly have informations from newspaper black chronicle sections. If most of editors think that this is ok then we will probably have an even longer section with every international report for a particular year, private quarrels in cafes, personal posts of private persons on Facebook and gmails, individual graffiti in side streets etc. Mikola22 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also “ In 2013 it was reported that a group of right-wing extremists had taken over the Croatian Wikipedia, editing mostly articles related to the Ustashe, whitewashing their crimes, and articles targeting Serbs.” as well as listing facebook post controversies and every instance of bigotry seems like coatracking. The section needs slimming down considerably. Again seems like just listing events than an analysis of anti Serb sentiment in Croatia. OyMosby (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: and @Griboski: The recent additions to an already extremely long Croatia section seems a bit like coatracking. Now it’s even longer. Should every event be added? No other section seems so long and extensive. And why remove “ According to Ivan Zvonimir Čičak” when stating a person’s viewpoint? Also the last two new additions are both about bigotry at soccer games. And is “ Ustashe salute” and symbology not outlawed?OyMosby (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is about the same exact event twice.
- “ Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who said Croatia cannot give lessons to Serbia about war crimes, said: "Let them pray to God that we do not clean up our yard because if we start to clean our yard you will have a lot more Serbs from Croatia who will have to go to Serbia.” Wasn’t she referring to war criminals specifically not Croatian Serbs as a whole?OyMosby (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think PM has been pinged enough and he will chime in if he wants to. To be fair, the only real content I added was the soccer match which directly links Anti-Serb sentiment. The rest was just re-structuring and supporting references. I admit I hadn't looked carefully enough at some of the propositions in this section. As far as I know, statements should only be attributed when they are questionable and aren't backed up by other sources. Maybe we can remove the part about the legality of the Za Dom Spremni chant altogether? Regardless of its legality, these sorts of things will be used by someone for nafarious purposes. You're right about the football match being listed twice, I'll remove it. --Griboski (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I mentioned him only twice for different topics of questions. Not sure you concern as he likely isn’t on now he usually isn’t on this time of day. Again I’m not singling out your edits in isolation as your recent edits are tiny. The main body was there before you edited. I am not blaming it all on you just to be clear here . Thats why I pinged you too, not just a Peacemaker , who is usually off Wikipedia during this time. Me, I’m a night owel, lol. I pinged you for your input overall as well. It’s getting tonthat time where I must go. We can continue tomorrow and figure things out together. OyMosby (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Wasn’t she referring to war criminals specifically not Croatian Serbs as a whole?" Later she explains that this is because of that. Mikola22 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree on the Tomašić statement. It's good to go in my view. --Griboski (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Wasn’t she referring to war criminals specifically not Croatian Serbs as a whole?" Later she explains that this is because of that. Mikola22 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I mentioned him only twice for different topics of questions. Not sure you concern as he likely isn’t on now he usually isn’t on this time of day. Again I’m not singling out your edits in isolation as your recent edits are tiny. The main body was there before you edited. I am not blaming it all on you just to be clear here . Thats why I pinged you too, not just a Peacemaker , who is usually off Wikipedia during this time. Me, I’m a night owel, lol. I pinged you for your input overall as well. It’s getting tonthat time where I must go. We can continue tomorrow and figure things out together. OyMosby (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think PM has been pinged enough and he will chime in if he wants to. To be fair, the only real content I added was the soccer match which directly links Anti-Serb sentiment. The rest was just re-structuring and supporting references. I admit I hadn't looked carefully enough at some of the propositions in this section. As far as I know, statements should only be attributed when they are questionable and aren't backed up by other sources. Maybe we can remove the part about the legality of the Za Dom Spremni chant altogether? Regardless of its legality, these sorts of things will be used by someone for nafarious purposes. You're right about the football match being listed twice, I'll remove it. --Griboski (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Griboski: "For #2 how do you propose re-wording it then? This earlier work also mentions the conversion of Serbs post-war to Catholicism." You do not see what the source say? This information from him is more fringe than earlier information from other source. Information will be consistent with the source and information from the footnote, as my edit was earlier. Mikola22 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I see what the source says on page 14. I was trying to reach a compromise. The note says, "I obtained this information from some Serbs living in Zagreb who did not wish to reveal their identities." Maybe this information could be attributed to the Professor. --Griboski (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Griboski: "after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95), several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testify that some young Serbs have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism and changed their surnames in order to "become Croats". Information "after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95)" is context from the source (page 14), and this is information from footnote "several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testify that". The rest is information from page 14. If we are going to have this information in the article then we need to cite all informations from the source because information itself from page 14 is fringe information. Either there will be information like this or there won't be information from this source. We cannot promote fringe informations. Mikola22 (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The footnote for that information is on page 37 and I've quoted it. It's not written how you quoted it. I don't see what makes this information "fringe". For example see Croatisation. This is the author's conclusion, after speaking with Serbs from Zagreb who didn't reveal their identities to him. If a statement is potentially controversial or comes from a biased source, but still reliably-published, then we attribute it in-line to the author. If you feel that strongly that the explanatory information from the footnote should be there though, then ok. --Griboski (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Griboski: "many younger Serbs in Croatia have reportedly converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", this information is fringe information. I have never heard for this in my life nor have I found sources which talk about it. What is not a fringe is his conversation with several Zagreb Serbs and this can be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Otherwise this information is in context of "persistent demonization and discrimination" not croatisation. Mikola22 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Voluntary conversion in order to "become Croat", i.e. cultural/ethnic assimilation, i.e. Croatisation. --Griboski (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is process of cultural assimilation. In any case information which exists(exposed above) is fringe information. We are talking about that and not about Croatisation. Mikola22 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Voluntary conversion in order to "become Croat", i.e. cultural/ethnic assimilation, i.e. Croatisation. --Griboski (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The footnote for that information is on page 37 and I've quoted it. It's not written how you quoted it. I don't see what makes this information "fringe". For example see Croatisation. This is the author's conclusion, after speaking with Serbs from Zagreb who didn't reveal their identities to him. If a statement is potentially controversial or comes from a biased source, but still reliably-published, then we attribute it in-line to the author. If you feel that strongly that the explanatory information from the footnote should be there though, then ok. --Griboski (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Griboski: "after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95), several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testify that some young Serbs have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism and changed their surnames in order to "become Croats". Information "after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95)" is context from the source (page 14), and this is information from footnote "several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testify that". The rest is information from page 14. If we are going to have this information in the article then we need to cite all informations from the source because information itself from page 14 is fringe information. Either there will be information like this or there won't be information from this source. We cannot promote fringe informations. Mikola22 (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Croatian Catholic Church priests
Some priests in the Croatian Catholic Church participated in these Ustaša massacres and the mass conversion of Serbs to Catholicism
- As far as I know these priests were expelled from the church(which participated in these Ustaša massacres). Whether this information may be used in such a way ie without this information that they were expelled from the church? Mikola22 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Source? Expelled when and why is it relevant? --Griboski (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Slavko Goldstein talk about that on TV. He spoke for Miroslav Filipović, this is information from article "On 4 April 1942, Filipović was reportedly suspended from his chaplaincy post". Maybe it's relevant because Croatian Catholic Church is not responsible for the acts of some individuals who have been expelled from Croatian Catholic Church because of that acts. Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't think it's worth mentioning, assuming it is true that they were expelled because of their participation in massacres. With some exceptions, a large part of the Croatian Catholic clergy supported Ustaše policies. As Tomasevich also points out here, the Church hierarchy never made any public protests, meanwhile the Vatican supported them. --Griboski (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here we talk about this information "Some priests in the Croatian Catholic Church participated in these Ustaša massacres", not about "Croatian Catholic clergy" and their behaviour at the time. Mikola22 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that a considerable amount of priests sided with the regime and those at the top were complicit as well. So the idea that some of them were suspended from their positions because of their participation in atrocities gives the impression that the church did not tolerate this, when in fact it's the complete opposite. Don't overcomplicate things. --Griboski (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is far more nuanced than that. Some of the Catholic hierarchy enthusiastically supported the Ustashas, as did some priests. Some took a neutral position or paid lip service, and some actually joined the Partisans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that a considerable amount of priests sided with the regime and those at the top were complicit as well. So the idea that some of them were suspended from their positions because of their participation in atrocities gives the impression that the church did not tolerate this, when in fact it's the complete opposite. Don't overcomplicate things. --Griboski (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here we talk about this information "Some priests in the Croatian Catholic Church participated in these Ustaša massacres", not about "Croatian Catholic clergy" and their behaviour at the time. Mikola22 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't think it's worth mentioning, assuming it is true that they were expelled because of their participation in massacres. With some exceptions, a large part of the Croatian Catholic clergy supported Ustaše policies. As Tomasevich also points out here, the Church hierarchy never made any public protests, meanwhile the Vatican supported them. --Griboski (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Slavko Goldstein talk about that on TV. He spoke for Miroslav Filipović, this is information from article "On 4 April 1942, Filipović was reportedly suspended from his chaplaincy post". Maybe it's relevant because Croatian Catholic Church is not responsible for the acts of some individuals who have been expelled from Croatian Catholic Church because of that acts. Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
19th and early 20th century in the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary
@KIENGIR: I'm not afraid of the expression Croatia because it is a logical, but we must look at other examples from Wikipedia. On Nikola Tesla article it was a lot of RfC and discussions and I learned that Nikola Tesla was not born in Croatia but he was born and lived in Austrian Empire. At the same time in this article we have Croatia fact. Mikola22 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67:,
- yes it's hard to find the best concise title name, but the section also refer outside the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary times, so as well this form is not the best solution.
- Mikola, again, the Nikola Tesla issue has nothing to with this article, it's irrelevant, and does not change the fact the Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia existed.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- There are certainly better and more accurate options than what you put there, which seemed extremely pointy. Given the material seems to refer to the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire rather than the earlier part of the 19th century, I suggest "19th and early 20th century in the Austro-Hungarian Empire". This also opens the scope for inclusion of any anti-Serb sentiment in other parts of the empire where Serbs lived. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I support the proposal of editor Peacemaker67, it is important that the name is in line with the history time and political context. Mikola22 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67:,
- given history of the issue I've put more accurate designations as was before, however being precise is not necessarily equals being extremely pointy. Your latest solution is worse, since Starčević's issues starts with 1850s, when Austria-Hungary did not exist. So the best solution then would just put Habsburg Monarchy then.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- The Starčević stuff is just part of the introduction to the development of what happened during the empire period. None of the actual demonstrations of the sentiment that are listed occurred before the empire took over. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarificarion, if you diasgree my latest edit, revert it then.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- The Starčević stuff is just part of the introduction to the development of what happened during the empire period. None of the actual demonstrations of the sentiment that are listed occurred before the empire took over. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I support the proposal of editor Peacemaker67, it is important that the name is in line with the history time and political context. Mikola22 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are certainly better and more accurate options than what you put there, which seemed extremely pointy. Given the material seems to refer to the period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire rather than the earlier part of the 19th century, I suggest "19th and early 20th century in the Austro-Hungarian Empire". This also opens the scope for inclusion of any anti-Serb sentiment in other parts of the empire where Serbs lived. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
What wikipedia isn't
Wikipedia is not the place for writing about "demonization" theories like a number of editors from sr wiki have been trying to do. The community has dealt with this kind of rhetoric and has decided that it doesn't belong in wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs. Attempts to reinstitate such rhetoric in various forms will just lead to wider community discussions at AE. Now, extraordinary claims need WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources. If of the countless academic publications about the dissolution of Yugoslavia, only one has produced a story about the forced conversion of Serbs to Catholicism it's a red flag that you should search for verification in other sources--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is just your POV. Thank you for essay, let's call it that, it sounds nice. There is no extraordinary claim here and the version is/was stable, which also means something. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually how wikipedia functions. You cannot use wikipedia to put forward:
Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, after the Croatian War of Independence (1991–95), several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb testified that some young Serbs have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism and changed their surnames in order to "become Croats".
It degrades the project and is absolutely unacceptable in the context of wikipedia. If that sounds like something which you can't abide to, maybe you should consider other projects that are more welcome to such rhetoric.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)- For what it's worth, there are several contemporary sources where interviewees discuss the pressure exerted on Serbs in wartime and post-war Croatia to identify as Croats and/or abandon their religion in favour of Catholicism. [2] [3] While this doesn't justify the current wording, it challenges the claim put forth by Mikola22 that "there are no other sources" which attest to this phenomenon. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then put together some wording that explains this as more general issue affecting a substantial number of people. The idea that a report of "several anonymous Serbs" about others who have converted or changed their names is enough for this statement in the article is just nonsense. Inclusion on the basis of this source alone is completely undue. I have no doubt that this has occurred, but for it to be included in the article it needs to be more than an isolated incident. We are not going to be including every bit of hearsay from anonymous people and every example of bad things that have happened to Serbs in Croatia. Otherwise this will degenerate into a coatrack again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I’m still waiting for an explanation for the accusations of “terrible whitewashing” towards my edit [HERE] Even though my edit literally is cited and refers to Starcevic’s views a chauvinist. I returned the caption to its stable state as the same day a new line was added and he was the father of the homeland before he was even born? To whom? The article doesn’t say? This article is riddled with ossues and if one tries to fix them they are accused of “whitewashing”. The stable caption had just his name for all these years. Now he is “father of the homeland”? Not to mention the article goes in full detail of his bigotry. To quote the above “the previous version was/is stable so that means something”. Funny eh?OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've protected the article to stop the edit-warring. Discuss this matter here, and resolve it BEFORE editing the article, including using dispute resolution if needed. Any further edit warring of this material will be reported, regardless of the number of reverts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know you are referring to the other editors. However just want to reiterate my issue predates the current edit war. I linked to the diff in my last reply. I think a report may be needed for both really as this is getting all out of hand. OyMosby (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've protected the article to stop the edit-warring. Discuss this matter here, and resolve it BEFORE editing the article, including using dispute resolution if needed. Any further edit warring of this material will be reported, regardless of the number of reverts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I’m still waiting for an explanation for the accusations of “terrible whitewashing” towards my edit [HERE] Even though my edit literally is cited and refers to Starcevic’s views a chauvinist. I returned the caption to its stable state as the same day a new line was added and he was the father of the homeland before he was even born? To whom? The article doesn’t say? This article is riddled with ossues and if one tries to fix them they are accused of “whitewashing”. The stable caption had just his name for all these years. Now he is “father of the homeland”? Not to mention the article goes in full detail of his bigotry. To quote the above “the previous version was/is stable so that means something”. Funny eh?OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then put together some wording that explains this as more general issue affecting a substantial number of people. The idea that a report of "several anonymous Serbs" about others who have converted or changed their names is enough for this statement in the article is just nonsense. Inclusion on the basis of this source alone is completely undue. I have no doubt that this has occurred, but for it to be included in the article it needs to be more than an isolated incident. We are not going to be including every bit of hearsay from anonymous people and every example of bad things that have happened to Serbs in Croatia. Otherwise this will degenerate into a coatrack again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, there are several contemporary sources where interviewees discuss the pressure exerted on Serbs in wartime and post-war Croatia to identify as Croats and/or abandon their religion in favour of Catholicism. [2] [3] While this doesn't justify the current wording, it challenges the claim put forth by Mikola22 that "there are no other sources" which attest to this phenomenon. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually how wikipedia functions. You cannot use wikipedia to put forward:
- This information is a presentation of opinion of several anonymous Serbs from Zagreb. The author claim based on this anonymous information is that many young Serbs from Croatia change names and surnames and convert to Catholicism. Even if this is true, there is among others and natural assimilation process, also and Croats etc change their names and surnames, in America some Croats also change their names or surnames. But at the same time allegedly exist massively(many) convertion to Catholicism. This is pure propaganda. Also become a Croat means that these persons start privately declare themselves as Croats. Therefore here we have a lot of unproven facts and for such strong claims we must have additional sources as confirmation. Mikola22 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Mikola22. They say it all very well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Why did you leave the last version by Malesha, when there is an active discussion? That's plain wrong. Restore the former version and let's come with another wording, based on source presented by AB and the one which we have, which is RS. 00:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- No it isn't wrong. There is always someone who claims the wrong version has been protected. This is just temporary until a resolution is achieved here on the talk page, by discussion or via dispute resolution. Just engage with the discussion and come up with a consensus position on this issue. Let me remind you that you were also involved in the edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- According to the 1995 WaPo article:
Pupovac said some school officials publicly ridicule Serb children whose parents will not allow them to attend the catechism classes. And government-appointed school directors, many of whom back the ruling Croatian Democratic Union, resist organizing Orthodox classes, Goldstein said. (..) The pressure is "creating great fear, and a kind of depression" among Serbs, Pupovac said, and many of them are giving up being Serb. "Parents are saying, My children are more important than my identity,' " he said.
Pupovac is described asMilorad Pupovac, a Serb linguistics professor at Zagreb University and a leader of the Serb community
. The context of the claim is that according to Pupovac because of pressure to attend Catholic catechism, Serbs eventually "are giving up being Serb". His comment cannot be used as a source. Forced conversion is not mentioned and the comment implies that because Orthodox catechism was not available in 1995 in schools, Serbs will lose their identity if they attend Catholic catechism. Now, this is one person's political comment about what would happen in the future based on a very specific narrative about identity. In present-day Croatia, Orthodox religious education is available and annual publications as early as 2002 showed that there were no reports of forced religious conversion. I don't know what is being asked here. To use hearsay from a 1995 newspiece and assert that in Croatia Serbs "may" have been converting to Catholicism due to discrimination? And I'm not saying that no Serbs in "mixed marriages" in places like Zagreb converted to Catholicism as Croats in a similar situation in Belgrade converted to Orthodoxy in order to make their life easier to navigate through in the 1990s but there's a big difference between that and the broad claim that a social phenomenon of conversion among Serbs in Croatia "may" have existed. That is irresponsible towards the readers because it doesn't express a WP:DUE representation of bibliography. I don't think that anyone would be allowed to assert in a paper such a thing based on these references. Side comment: Just because almost every tag available has been placed in the article, it doesn't mean that we as editors have no responsibility towards the readers. The tags are not a disclaimer which allows editorial disorder, but a call for editing to improve.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- Pupovac is a politician and we know what politicians do. I was going to high school at that time and I went to ethics classes not catechism classes even though I am a Catholic. There were also Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims and atheists with me in these classes. I have never heard of any problems. There were also a lot of mixed marriages in Croatia, and everyone is looking for their own paths to happiness, but promotion of the thesis that many young Serbs convert to Catholicism to become Croats I did not hear nor in time of war. This information is in the range of propaganda and it would be polite to prove it with several sources. Mikola22 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- According to the 1995 WaPo article:
- No it isn't wrong. There is always someone who claims the wrong version has been protected. This is just temporary until a resolution is achieved here on the talk page, by discussion or via dispute resolution. Just engage with the discussion and come up with a consensus position on this issue. Let me remind you that you were also involved in the edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Starčević quote
The recently added Starčević quote appears to be unsourced. The Ante Starčević article, where the information was copied from, doesn't cite a source for it. The next line is cited to "Die südslawische Frage und der Weltkrieg: Übersichtliche Darstellung des Gesamt-problems" by L. von Südland (1918), but it's unclear if the previous information and quote appears there. I'm assuming probably not, else it would be cited to it. I haven't been able to find a confirmation of this in any reliable sources. The recent addition also puts undue weight on the fact that he temporarily retreated from his chauvinistic writings after receiving backlash. It quotes an entire passage but none of his explicitly racist statements against Serbs are given such prominence. As far as I know, he never explicitly disavowed his bigoted views, so I wonder what exactly the point of this addition is in the grand scheme of things. I would trim the quote down to the most relevant part at least, assuming it can actually be sourced. --Griboski (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The “point” was addition information where later due to backlash of his bigoted views. I don’t under stand the what is implied by “grand scheme of things” but his bigotry and chauvinism is extensively covered in the article. The quote I copied was to let it speak for itself rather than I reinterpreting the subjects words. If it is not in the source than it can be removed though I thought the source had it. I didn’t think it put undue weight as it is far outweighed by his clearly stated hateful views. As for what views he walk back that is what the quote was for. Wether he really meant it (probably not as it says it qas done for publicity) or not is irrelevant. Again if not sourced properly I will remove the quote and try to see where it came from. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- On the undue aspect, I was referring specifically to the fact that this particular passage from one of his articles which was apparently straying away from the usual tone in his writings was quoted at length, but none of his other, more characteristic ones were. His general attitudes are covered, I agree but the big picture is that his views were widely seen as bigoted, views which I don't think he ever repudiated. I'm okay with this information being included if it can be sourced. It would be better with a summary and/or condensed quote. --Griboski (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree on balancing quotes. Thing was there was no academic breakdown of his alleged article quote so I included the quote in whole. I removed it regardless as it fails source verification. I also made a note on the subject’s respective article that citation is needed. OyMosby (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- On the undue aspect, I was referring specifically to the fact that this particular passage from one of his articles which was apparently straying away from the usual tone in his writings was quoted at length, but none of his other, more characteristic ones were. His general attitudes are covered, I agree but the big picture is that his views were widely seen as bigoted, views which I don't think he ever repudiated. I'm okay with this information being included if it can be sourced. It would be better with a summary and/or condensed quote. --Griboski (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Kosovo Albanians
Under "Contemporary and recent issues" the Term "Kosovo Albanians" ethnicized and collectivized an accusation. It has to be only Kosovo, like everywhere else145.40.193.107 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Wording s confusing and makes it seem the article is saying something it isn't
"Little suggests that the actions of Albanians at the time constituted ethnic cleansing as they attempted to create a homogoneous area free of Christian Serbs.[6]" - this sounds like it is stating that it wasn't ethnic cleansing because the name of the author is "little", may I suggest adding in his first name to make the article less confusing and potentially misleading. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.78.14 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Kosovo Albanians subsection
I would change this myself but the article is protected.
The "contemporary" section needs a bit of work for clarity. The first paragraph in the subsection talks about the worst violence since the 1999 conflict (which conflict?) erupting in Kosovo. There's a whole paragraph about events that happened, but no date attached. When did this happen? I can't tell. All the paragraph says is that it was after 1999 (which I guess makes it "contemporary"). Alcatraz ii (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Republika Srpska Question
While the IP was inflammatory and anti-Serbian in the flesh. There is no mention of having “negative views of Republika Srpska” being anti-Serbian. No cited source either. So seems pov pushing in the intro. Likely should be removed. Thoughts anyone? OyMosby (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Misuse of source
There is a claim that during the Yugoslav settlement program "400 thousand" Albanians were expelled. Nowhere in the source provided does it give that number. 2600:1009:B01C:6320:B19B:B131:3DD0:5EFF (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Biased source
It is actually a biased source too but that is okay. There are always biased sources or sources from the ethnicities or nations involved that tell their side of the story only. That is okay. Even then, nowhere in the source provided does it list 400 thousand expelled. 2600:1009:B01C:6320:B19B:B131:3DD0:5EFF (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- 400 thousand expelled? Show me your proof. Lokalni Hrvat (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- „Lokalni Hrvat“
- Seems like you have an unbiased view of this ÆRTI (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)