Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment

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://balkaninsight.com/2018/04/23/wikipedia-not-replying-to-inquires-on-croatian-entries-04-20-2018/

https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Croatia/Croatian-language-Wikipedia-when-the-extreme-right-rewrites-history-190081

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

https://faktograf.hr/2018/10/18/sto-nas-wikipedia-uci-o-medijskoj-pismenosti-kako-su-pali-daily-mail-breitbart-i-infowars/

https://web.archive.org/web/20161110165516/http://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/ndh-nije-bila-totalitarna-a-zrtve-u-jasenovcu-pobili-su-partizani-desnicari-preuzeli-uredivanje-hrvatske-wikipedije/1068473/

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Wikipedia&oldid=983689658

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/29/croatian-wikipedia-removed-claims-on-polish-genocide-over-germans-03-29-2018/

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

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-why-is-the-catholic-church-sanctifying-nazi-collaborating-mass-murderers-1.8845698

JohnGotten (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism??

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carl Savich

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

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

One comment in this forum[1] says he has nothing beyond a Master's degree. The problem is there is nothing to confirm his historian status, not even on his article. 94.116.129.172 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kvaternik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"2000s"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia controversy

I wrote:

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

User:Anonimski wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the crude misconstruation was modified afterwards, it would be useful to have the current position on the English language source, if apart from the stated inaccuracy it really was well-informed and IIUC Joy hadn't any problem with it. On another note, I fail to understand how "Za dom spremni" salute isn't "anti-Serb" but it does "incite racial hatred" (the wording taken from Breitbart's article which was followed thru article's ref at [2]). Towards whom is then this hatred directed if not towards the enemies of the NDH regime whom the Ustaše were allegedly battling - some would say exterminating? --biblbroks (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)