Talk:Tim Judah

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charles Simic

Sure Simic criticized the book Judah published. Come one! Are we pretending that this is an individual better placed to remark on historical & current affairs than Tim Judah? Simic is a poet and that is all. If he knows better, let him write his own reports on Russian/Serbian affairs. I strongly propose we either remove the part or lessen its impact. Honestly, to this subject Simic is a mere blog. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, just gather positive reviews and put them in. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Peacemaker it gets worse. Now Anonimski is trying to deny the Serb ethnicity of Simic by claiming his comments come on the back of being American Serb. Watering down the facts again. If he was American Irish or American Jewish or proper American then he would have never made those pathetic claims, or the one against Malcolm. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your interest, Peacemaker67 was the one that added Serbian-American to another mention of Simic that I had written earlier. And then I thought it could be added (and wikilinked to) here as well... - Anonimski (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I believe it should remain. It is important context for his criticism, ie he is an American-Serb. We don't put it in the article, but his Serb ethnicity probably has an impact on his views... If he was Danish, it probably wouldn't be necessary. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with "Let's keep it neutral" on his original entry. Charles Simic has given us a review that is clearly went too far into the realm of the Serbian POV. His bias is seen in the exact part of the text that was put in the article. We cannot take the person who implies the justification of rebellion in words taken out of context and street names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmina32 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources is a useful essay that might give you some insights. - Anonimski (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this review seriously needs to be quoted directly from the source, it is wrong to have this kind of disinformation in an encyclopedia.Tmina32 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the "dissent" phrasing, the article focuses on the ethnic issues in general rather than the RSK rebel government (at least that's what I would associate with "the dissent"). Also, the sentence was a bit hacked up by over-quoting, I don't see how it improved anything... - Anonimski (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic issues mentioned are the common supposed reasons of the RSK rebellion, so no, its not "general ethnic issues". I find "dissent" the appropriate word, but feel free to change that word. As I said, this qouestionable statment, to say the least, really needs to be qouted. And two quotes in a sentence is not too much. If you think you can do a better job, do it, instead of reverting it completely.Tmina32 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: an IP editor has deleted the Simic content [1]. This seems extreme. However, I have not blindly restored it since a lot of its content was not clear about what in the book Simic is criticizing. Since the subsection on the book is now empty, for now I have deleted it and moved mention of the book into the rest of the text. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]