Talk:Serbian nationalism

original research

Please do not remove the {{originalresearch}} and {{disputed}} until you can provide some references for the article. // Laughing Man 01:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But I’ve already provided them.--MaGioZal 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

99% of the article is unsourced. I suggest you review WP:NOR as it clearly explains the policy here, and without sources, this article appears to be just that -- original research. // Laughing Man 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But the text of the article can be refered by the other links already present in the article. I think there’s no necessity to put a gazillion of references if they are already present in the articles linked.--MaGioZal 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And, let’s check the policies:

*It introduces a theory or method of solution;

*It introduces original ideas;

*It defines new terms;

*It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

*It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

*It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

*It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Well, I think most of the article doesn’t have these “sins”. And please, don’t own the Serbian/Serb articles.--MaGioZal 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, you must provide sources. I think Jimmy said it very well, and hopefully you can understand from his explanation.

"The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history."

Also please spare me of your conspirarcy theories and just fix the problems with the article. // Laughing Man 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are bringings things related to other article talk that for now doesn’t relate to the talk here. And I’ve used the term “Serbian Guard Cabal” not as an affirmation or accusation; that was just a term I’ve used to express my feeling on that context — I used “this kind of ‘Serb Guard Cabal’”, not “Serb Guard Cabal”. It’s a different thing.

And reading Jimbo’s excerpt you’ve posted above, I really can’t see where this article infringes so much the “no original research law” as you are stating.--MaGioZal 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it simply as possible -- just source the article. Thank you. // Laughing Man 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say a couple of things here. I find this article ridiculous in its claim to be some sort of a compendium of Serbian nationalism starting from like the 9th century up to today. The author, whoever he/she is, is putting together arbitrarily some people and groups of people, their wishes and aspirations from such diverse periods of both history and social and cultural development in a way which is not possible in this manner, in my opinion. I, for that matter can't even perceive of a way that someone can talk about nationalism before, at earliest, the first nation state was formed. To say that this "is an old phenomenon between the Slavic, generally Orthodox, Shtokavian-speaking peoples of the Balkans — denominated Serbs, beginning to appear in the Middle Ages" is to say the least an extreme exaggeration. If a member of a tribe that collects berries all day trying to feed his family which has been converted from paganism to christianity about a century or two ago can be said to have been a Serb nationalist, I rest my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.218.40.40 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

other comments

I am trying to understand the origins of Serbian Nationalism in my study of World War I, since the phenomenon happens to play a pretty major role in getting the war started. It also plays a pretty big role in post-World-War-II European politics and bloodshed. And if you haven't noticed, bloodshed in post-WWII Europe is pretty rare. So what I would like to find out is how an actual Serbian Nationalist views his/her origins. To what group of people or ancient personage does a Serbian Nationalist trace his/her roots? Who is the Great Serb, the memory of whom is worth the sacrifice of so much slaughtered human flesh?--71.206.185.209 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Serb" is actually used to sell Ustashe-O's, a rabidly anti-Croatian cereal. The box has a smiling Stephen Dushan riding a marshmallow horse toward a cereal bowl shaped like Constantinople while the ragged Ragusans wave their fists from the blighted hills of Dalmatia. Seriously, though....you're not writing a report. You're writing a trolling plee for attention. WWI was an inevitable consequences of a lack of understanding or forethought among the great powers concerning their military alliances and new military technology. If anything, German Nationalism is to blame, in that Serbia made several concessions to Austria-Hungary which were rejected because the Prussians were spoiling for a fight which they thought they would win quickly. In fact, German Nationalism is also the clear cause of WWII, isn't it? And yet "German Nationalism" sensibly re-directs to "Nationalism" (a well researched page with sources) to avoid demonizing a country for its pasts. This page should do the same, unless anyone can claim with a straight face that Serbian Nationalism is more signifigant to the history of the twentieth century than German nationalism. This page, like its fellow one-sided abortion "Croatian Nationalism" should be deleted, unless someone can 1)justify their existence and 2)make them anything but an unreadable set of accusations, excuses, and counter accusations.

I just had to add something about Blaško Temunović- the info is untrue since police issued a report stating he was attacked by his ex-girlfriends friends because he was abusing her and sending treatening text messages via mobile phone. There are now numerous sources for this and its clear he tried to use the attack to raise his political rating. Stating he was attacked by Serbs is jumping to conclusions even before police investigation ended. Most important is both of the attackers have been caught and are not Serbs but Bunjevac/Hungarian. Info is therefore untrue and should be removed.

Some of web resources on Serbian nationalism

Refrences on Serbian nationalism

• Serbian nationalism, Michigan State University

• United States Institute of Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.49 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Could someone please restore the references section to an earlier version so that the book titles can be shown

Someone altered the references section by removing the titles of the books, leaving only short footnotes. The title of the books are nowhere to be seen in the bibliography, making the references presently useless, as they cannot be verified. I am not sure when the change occured, but I urge someone who can find an earlier version with the titles intact to be restored to this article.--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to do some Googling but I found the books by Ramet and Wachtel which were used in the article. The refs are restored. Timbouctou (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting the article and getting tough on lack of citations for this often controversial topic: this article should be fully cited for each sentence and uncited or unreliable material should be removed.

I am rewriting the intro and history section of this article. It has been badly disorganized and almost completely uncited for a long time - this is completely unacceptable. This is an article on a very controversial topic in Balkan and world history - every sentence needs to be cited and it needs to be from reliable sources such as scholarly works - unreliable sources meaning: websites, documents from organizations directly promoting a political agenda, sensationalized newspaper stories that are reactions to immediate events and are typically vague - or if accurate can and should be found in in-depth and scholarly historical accounts of the matters.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I just hope you intend on adding some source other than Motyl. At the moment three pages from his book are cited 28 times. Timbouctou (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism

Sorry but I don't get the rationale behind this edit and your insistence to re-define the term "ethnic nationalism" because this is precisely what it is. Language and culture here serve the function of constructing a case for ethnic nationalism and territorial claims, which is excellently described in the lead of our own article on ethnic nationalism:

"The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "..nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry." It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language; however it is different from purely cultural definitions of "the nation" (which allow people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation) and a purely linguistic definitions (which see "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language)."

So yeah, I'd say the topic of the article, Vuk Karadžić and all, pretty much describes exactly that. In fact, if you take out language and culture out of the equation, what would a nationalist (any nationalist) base his ideas on? Timbouctou (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets look at the idea of Serbian nationalism being exclusively ethnic nationalism. Could, for instance, a Hungarian Vojvodinian married to a Serb be a Serbian nationalist if they supported the ideas of Serbian nationalism?--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. What makes him a "Hungarian Vojvodinian" in the first place? The very fact that he speaks Hungarian. Could a Hungarian-speaking person be a Serb nationalist? Yes, but only IF he self-identifies with Serbian culture in other forms via ancestors as is the case with diaspora. (If a Hungarian from Vojvodina wanted to embrace Serbian nationalism he would simply assimilate into Serb ethnicity, see Serbianisation). As for diasporic communities - there are loads of Croatian nationalists living in countries like Canada and Australia who don't even speak Croatian but identify with nationalism by claiming Croatian heritage, by singing Croatian songs, by claiming their blood is "pure Croatian" and so forth. So culture and language are inextricably part of any kind of nationalism. Nationalists always use these elements and that is why they like labelling their own compatriots as not being "patriotic" for things like not speaking the official language, participating in forms of culture other than the native one and so forth. If nationalism was all about ethnicity regardless of these factors than nationalists would be required to accept any ethnically Serb person as one of their own - which is certainly not the case. In this particular case Serbdom is what one has to show signs of in order to be considered a Serb by nationalists. To nationalists, a second-generation immigrant in Melbourne speaking only English but wearing a šajkača publicly or regularly going to a Serb Orthodox church is far more of a Serb than a Serbian guy with Serbian parents who speaks Serbian and lives in downtown Belgrade - but is a gay atheist. Timbouctou (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think R-41 is refering not to the inmigrants abroad, but rather to non-Serbs who emraced Serbian Culture... Quite a different situation. For instance, in Portugal there is a Portuguese writter that simply loves Serbia, he bought a home there and emraced Serbian culture completely (except Orthodox faith, which is only part of Serbian Culture), however, he is 100% Portuguese and his family is all Portuguese... FkpCascais (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"To nationalists, a second-generation immigrant in Melbourne speaking only English but wearing a šajkača publicly or regularly going to a Serb Orthodox church is far more of a Serb than a Serbian guy with Serbian parents who speaks Serbian and lives in downtown Belgrade - but is a gay atheist." Timbouctou, what does being gay have to do with nationalism? Sure there are many xenophobic and anti-social nationalists who hate gays, but are you assuming that there are no Serbian nationalists who are gay, Timbouctou, can you prove that there are no gays within the Kosovo is Serbia movement for instance?--R-41 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Portuguese guy would be an example of Serbophilia then. The thing is, R-41 is confusing ethnic nationalism (which consists of an emphasis on certain religion, language, culture, by definition) and purely political nationalism (which deals with promoting the interests if a certain country and its nation, whether economically, politically or territorially). As for gays - yes, to nationalists (that's who we are talking about here) being gay is incompatible with belonging to Serb nation. If you think otherwise I wonder where have you been living for the past several years, the internet is full of proclamations by groups like Obraz who make a point of beating up gays because they feel it is contrary to Serbdom (e.g. culture). There are also videos on YouTube showing a Serb Orthodox priest mingling with homophobic nationalist hooligans and telling them what nice patriots they are (this was filmed a few years back when Gay Pride parade in Belgrade ended in lots of violence). And Serbs aren't the exception here, Croatian nationalist fringe groups regularly stage protests against gays and call for them to be incarcerated and we had a case recently where a Catholic priest was fined for homophobic remarks in public. If it is possible to be gay and a nationalist - I guess nobody told these guys. I cannot prove that there aren't any gay nationalists, but I can't prove that there aren't any Jewish Neo-nazis either. However, both are highly unlikely. And Kosovo je Srbija is all about political nationalism, a different topic altogether. These two things often morph into each other but are not the same, and in the case of the Balkans, they are often very difficult to distinguish. The reason why they are difficult to distinguish is that ethnic nationalism forms the basis for political nationalism (ethnic nationalism gives you the answer to the question "what one has to be like in order to belong to our people", whereas political nationalism deals with the idea of a nation and its rights - which is in turn defined as a "politically organized people".) Still, political nationalism comes and goes and can be found everywhere depending on the circumstances (the current economic crisis is a good example), but people usually referring to themselves as "nationalists" today are almost invariably talking about the ethnic kind. You being a Canadian might be familiar with Quebecois secessionists - people opposing the idea are by definition thus Canadian "political nationalists" but only a portion of them who say that everyone in the country should speak English and English only would be "ethnic nationalists". Timbouctou (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes he can be included as Serbophilia, but anyway, I am not so sure why you want to separate the "ethnic" component from the political one. Shouldn´t this article deal with both? FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it should but political nationalism is always implied as a moderate or extreme outgrowth of ethnic nationalism so there's no need to invent awkward wordings like we had in the lead. The series of articles in {{Ethnic nationalism}} already all talk about the ethnic kind, each mentioning its origins and political implications which it brought. Political nationalism is a normal thing in the modern world (for example in the form of economic protectionism) but ethnic nationalism is what people mean when they say that somebody is a "nationalist". Timbouctou (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"And Kosovo je Srbija is all about political nationalism, a different topic altogether." And whose nationalism is the political nationalism? Serbian, so it is a form of Serbian nationalism that is the topic of this article.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Using that logic any policy used by the Serbian government could be described as Serbian nationalism and hence this article should contain sections on everything from import taxes to provisions in the constitution which says Serbian is the official language. Political nationalism in general is too wide a topic and that's why the template is titled the way it is (Besides, what is "nationalism of a culture"? How can a culture be nationalist? That would then probably be cultural imperialism.). Timbouctou (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the Serbian government was tapping into an existing Serbian nationalist current. Where is your evidence that no gay Serbians have nationalist attitudes towards the issue of Kosovo? The Canadian nationalism article has information on cultural nationalism and civic nationalism, why can the Serbian nationalism article not have this?

Your question is pointless. I used that as an illustration for ethnic nationalism and you clinging onto that will get this discussion exactly nowhere. Where is your evidence that gay Serbians are members of Obraz or Nacionalni stroj? Where is your evidence that there aren't any gay Nazis? What's the point of asking these questions? "The Canadian nationalism article has information on cultural nationalism and civic nationalism, why can the Serbian nationalism article not have this?" Where did I say it can't? Timbouctou (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There were Nazis who were gay - Ernst Rohm, the leader of the Nazis' paramilitary group the SA, was a closeted gay person, though Hitler knew for a long time prior that Rohm was gay, and Rohm was in the upper echelons of the Nazi Party, so yes gay people have been important members of ultranationalist groups like the Nazis. You said that this article shouldn't have political nationalism included in it, the Canadian nationalism article does.--R-41 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are derailing the discussion. I know about Rohm but he is a perfect example. If Nazis thought gay is okay, why did Hitler use this against him after the Night of the Long Knives? The point is that Nazis as a whole were entirely opposed to it because it didn't mesh with what they thought was "German culture" (they put gays in concentration camps for God's sake and I don't know what you are trying to prove here? What, the existence of Rohm means Nazis were gay-friendly or what?). Just like Serb nationalists (as in, "people who call themselves nationalist in Serbia", people who call their parties "nationalist" and so forth) think the same. Kosovo je Srbija is not self-defined as a nationalist movement is it? And I never said political nationalism shouldn't be included - although now that you mention it - if you're going to devote the entire article to political nationalism of Milošević, than this will turn into a fork of Yugoslav Wars, Breakup of Yugoslavia and a dozen other articles. Timbouctou (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are focusing entirely on ethnic ultranationalism. You have denied that cultural nationalism exists and that it is cultural imperialism, but it has its own article with references. Vuk Karadzic claimed that the Stokavian dialect was the Serbian language and claimed that people who spoke Stokavian were Serbian, he acknowledged that this included Croats and others who didn't identify as Serbian - he claimed they were but that they could call themselves whatever they wished and had the right to self-determination based on their identity. Now regardless of what one thinks of the validity of Vuk Karadzic's idea, his nationalism was not focusing on genealogy - a main component of ethnic nationalism, it was focusing on language - a cultural nationalism.--R-41 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read my first post up there with the quote taken from Wikipedia's article on ethnic nationalism? Who told you that genealogy is the "main component of ethnic nationalism"? Cultural nationalism is something else entirely, you are mixing up your terminology. Anyway, if you choose to define nationalism as any movement which aims at creating (or expanding) a nation state (and reject what you call "ethnic ultranationalism"), what prevents this from being merged into History of Serbia? Timbouctou (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't go on about this anymore. There is no liklihood of resolution of this issue anytime soon. I'm going to leave the issue as moot, perhaps an administrator or mediator can come in later to determine whether this should be solely about ethnic nationalism. I will say however that you are focusing too much on ultranationalism - a currently strong phenomenon in Serbia, though not the only type of nationalism. This article needs to focus on Serbian nationalism in general and not automatically negatively associate it with ultranationalism, xenophobia, and homophobia.--R-41 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with finding anyone capable of defining "Serbian nationalism in general". Timbouctou (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct, but it still should not automatically be negatively associated with ultranationalism, xenophobia, and homophobia.--R-41 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment on merge

Hi have made a merge from the page List of Serbian mottos. The merge was proposed in October 2011, but it appears it was never discussed. I think it is reasonable, so have performed the merge. I moved the entire list, but perhaps some of the mottos (e.g. the soccer one?) do not belong. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

a new event in this saga ...

http://www.wral.com/serbia-sends-train-to-kosovo-north-despite-pristina-protest/16432379/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.26.177 (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbian-pm-kosovo-tried-to-provoke-conflict--01-14-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.26.177 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And what would you like us to do about it? 23 editor (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Non "semi-retired" concerned editors will utilize the current situation, without doubt. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 23 editor (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't - you began to take the note downhill - don't complain about your own doings. It is perfectly acceptable to post a relevant news item on the TP's. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Serb vs Serbian nationalism

Same as it is done with Bosniak nationalism, article should be divided to Serb nationalism as Serb ethnic nationalism, and into Serbian nationalism as regional nationalism of Serbia. --Munja (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)