Talk:SANU Memorandum

Untitled

Estavisti: your attempts at cleaning up the article were I think over-aggressive. One of your requests for a citation was rendered unnecessary by the paragraph laying out the varied ideas and focuses of the authors. You removed a mundane reference to it being considered nationalistic, which it was, universally. There is no point of view problem in stating a fact, and it is not a fact that requires any particular citation. I'm fine with some of your edits, but the ones I edited back were sort of odd. Why demand citations for the obvious? Why cut reference to the Memorandum's reputation as a nationalist document? Profnjm 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The interesting resemblance between the SANU Memorandum and Draza Mihailovic Seven Instructions

Here are them:

“ The mission of our units is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the King Peter II;
2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Backa;
3. The struggle for the incorporation into our social structure of those non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorica, Istria, and Kaernten), as well as Bulgaria and Northern Albania with Shkodra;
4. The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;
5. The creation of direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Bosniak population from Sandzak, and the Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6. The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;
7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

”

Even more interesting resemblance between the SANU Memorandum and todays reality

Almost everything was predicted correct. Serbs were ethnically cleaned out of Croatia (one of the ethnically cleanest states of Europe), Kosovo...

Must have been some clever people those SANU - guys... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.203.235 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Serbs brought upon themselves their neighbours' and ultimately the civilized nations' military reactions, and left by their own accord: Croatia in August 1995 and Kosova in June 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.135.150 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SANU Memorandum & Seven Instructions

It seems to me a very big strech to compare the SANU Memorandum and the Seven Instructions. Paperoverman (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The crucial difference is that Seven Instructions describe in no uncertain terms what would today be described as a "criminal endeavor". The Memorandum falls short of that. Such comparisons and parallels are WP:OR anyway when they are not backed up by reliable sources. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dobrica Cosic

This article contains contradictory references to Cosic as being 1) not on the committee that wrote the Memorandum and 2) one of its writers. This needs resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.53 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Spurious reasons for removing sourced content

I'm amazed that 23 editor used the lack of a page number in a ref as an excuse to remove some relevant, sourced content. It's in the book. Have you read it? It's not the first time you've tried this excuse; how long should this tendentious editing be tolerated? bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How hard is it (really?) to provide a page number so that something can be verified? Also, is Malcolm a lawyer by any chance? 23 editor (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm is a reliable source on the history of Kosovo, of course. Please stop making up spurious reasons to remove sourced content - I notice you take a much more relaxed approach to sourcing if it can push articles in the other direction. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob, if you read it, how hard is then to add a page? Until then, its really unsourced and should be out. FkpCascais (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: When 23 editor says "It's not sourced if there is no page number", that is not true. It's wrong. It's a lie. The content is sourced and verifiable. It is unfortunate, but not the first time, that you fall for such lies just because they allow sourced content to be manipulated to fit a Serb nationalist fantasy of Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

3 pages for one simple statement? FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in depth. Have you read this reliable source, or the 1903 constitution, yet? I imagine it would be helpful to read the sources before drawing big conclusions about constitutional history bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)