Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Background - 5 yr old tags, unaddressed[edit]

The entire "background" section has not a single reference. This was tagged over 5 years ago. Unreferenced information can be removed immediately, let alone giving editors notice to finish the job ... well, five years is long enough. Removed. If you have Reliable Sources (for which this topic has very, very many), then restore it properly referenced. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

requesting Administrator help[edit]

We have a section - "Background" - on this article that was tagged FIVE years ago for being completely unreferenced. Unreferenced material can be removed immediately. It was tagged to give interested editors a chance to backtrack and fill in the necessary in-line citations. No such activity was forthcoming. As Jimmy Wales has so often addressed on Talk Pages, unreferenced material may be removed as soon as it is posted. Well, I like to give the editing process some time. But five years has passed, and this is an encyclopedia - this is not how Wiki operates. I've tried to remove the section twice, to be reverted by editors who apparently have no regard for Wiki guidelines. Need Administrator action here. (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncited material can be removed in some cases. But in this case, we have no obvious reason to doubt its veracity, and what is needed is for someone to find citations. Perhaps instead of trying to delete material, why not try to find a reliable source and improve the article? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and needs folks like you to help build it up, not tear it down. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DOESN'T MATTER. ANY unreferenced material must be removed IMMEDIATELY - that's the rules here. Now, that section can be moved to the TP for interested editors to refer to and find sources. But the bottom line is, none of it should have been added this way in the first place. I've notified Jimbo Wales and asked him to comment. As it stands, technically, all that is Original Research, and can be voided on that basis alone. (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. - Wiki Policy (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language is Serbo-Croatian[edit]

I was instructed on some other wikpedia articles there should not be Croatian for a language in usage, but Serbo-Croatian, so it seems here should not be Serbian, but also Serbo-Croatian. That goes for any other article on Wikipedia concerning topics about Serbia or Serbians, and all will be changed accordingly. Walter9 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just your opinion, you don't work in the language committee. Also the croatization of the serbian language is getting more and more know each day and history is being rewritten, because serbia tried to put croatia under itself historically and the made up serbo-croatian is just a part of it VEcev (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)VEcevReply[reply]
Incorrect. Both parties speak Serbo-Croation (see that article and the Wiki policy statement at the top of its Talk Page) - 'Croatian' and 'Serbian' are standardized creations - due to politics - of the same language common to both, on the most prominent diaclect. (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government-in-exile again[edit]

Twelve years ago, I brought up the matter here on the talk page, now archived in Talk:Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina/Archive_3#Government_in_exile, about how the coverage of this "government-in-exile" group was faulty.

Two years ago, another user Koreanovsky seems to have picked up on that and removed mention of it, with an edit summary saying it was "unsourced", "the article about it got deleted" and "fringe group whose notability is not proven". These are reasonably obvious appeals to WP:V, WP:REDNOT, WP:FRINGE, WP:GROUP.

Now, this is being reverted, and we've seen these edit summaries:

KingAntenor said "linked to from international recognition of abkhazia/south ossetia" - this is a procedural revert, that I addressed by removing that link because it actually made no sense where it was

The Bushranger said "WP:NODEADLINE also applies to WP:BRD, and the original reason for removal was not policy based" - this is also a procedural revert, that then makes a claim about policy that does not seem to be grounded in fact, as the 2020 edit by Koreanovsky was hardly very bold (with a cleanup tag sitting there since 2013), and it reasonably clearly appealed to the policies and guidelines as described above.

Can someone help me understand how these reverts have meaning, one that isn't wikilawyering? Why doesn't someone cite an actual source that provides coverage about the said government-in-exile that instead addresses the fairly obvious issues? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Joy!
Nisam te u potpunosti razumio, ako nije problem molim te da mi ukratko objasniš (na hrvatskome) što se točno dešava, hvala lijepa!
I honestly do not really remember making that edit, but as I see, I have stated why I removed that. Long story short: It literally seems like there never ever was a government in exile of the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina and you cannot find any WP:RELY information about it. The quasi-government in exile of the so-called Serbian Krajina was "founded" 10 years after this proto-state fell by some random people in Serbia and the same year, in 2005, Serbian media (but also serious media like DW) wrote something about it's "establishing", the reactions and that's it! After the media went quiet about it you couldn't find any information or "official" news about it, because it seemed literally to be more a symbolic thing. There might be a few newer (= after 2005) news articles about it, but that's literally it. Not less and not more.
My point with that is, just because Serbian media had some sort of articles about it or because some people from that group had interviews, it really does not mean that it is a serious thing that existed for real. Literally anyone could create a such "government in exile". Imagine if someone of us creates e.g. a website and claims to be the "government of exile" of a historic proto-state (or actual nation), this would definitely not automatically make it a legitimate/recognised/serious government in exile.
Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]