Talk:Serbophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Disputed

This article is clearly used to push a political agenda. There is no scientific proof that this can be characterized as psychological disorder (phobia). Whoever put it up should present some proof.--Dado 22:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If no actual backing for a legit and notable existance of this term exists i suggest that we move to strike ---> SpeedyDel. Chelman

  • Usage mentioned in the article. Buy yourself google. The term was in use even before WWI. mikka (t) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also do not confuse the POV which is expressed by the term itself and the POV of wikipedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to legitimately present any POV in a NPOV way. mikka (t) 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of the phrase was political not scientific and it was also POV and pushing of political agenda. The article is not clear about the use of the term. POV + POV does not make NPOV. Sorry, but no evidence has been presented and the phrase is being misused today for various political goals. POV tag is back until some scientific NPOV proof is presented. --Dado 23:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Anti-semitism is schism. "Serbophobia" is claiming to be phobia (clinical). I could accept the note that this article is meant in its non-clinical i.e. political sense although I think that the whole article is non-sense and has no base in reality. As the article curretly reads it is POV and has no information to support the claim. --Dado 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you read? A notable person mentioned who used the word in available document. This is reality. Many Serbs like to use this word. Please read the policy NPOV then come back. mikka (t) 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I can read, and your presumption of my "(i)literacy" has been noted. If you cared to notice someone has removed your note that "The term is used in a non-clinical sense" (which I generally agree with) before you added it back again. Obviouslly the intention of the original author of the article was quite different from what you are claiming. I should also point out rather dangerous conclusion of the statement "as exemplified by a New York Times article (April 1, 2001), Milosevic Is Accused, but All of Serbia Is on Trial". This could be interpreted as implicitly accusing New York Times of racism. Something that may entertain NYT attorneys as potential slander of the newspaper. I would suggest removing it --Dado 03:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for harsh tone.
I don't care about the initial intentions of the author, which was an obvious misnomer, which I fixed. I am not "claiming" anything. I added not a single my interpretation of the term: it is a bare definition, easily found elsewhere, and examples of usage.
If the title of the NYT article is not racism (i.e., declaring that the whole nation is bad; a textbook example), then I don't know what else racism is. I am ready to stand this trial. I would politely suggest you to think about free speech and, more important in terms of "trial", about the difference between what is written and what is read. mikka (t) 03:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This metaphorical way of thinking of the nation as a person is very common in political discourse. Look up conceptual metaphor. This is certainly not restricted to serbia/serbians. - FrancisTyers 02:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All I meant to say is that the title was possibly taken out of context (as it is done many times). This should be as simple as "don't judge the book by its cover". --Dado 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the article. Besides, context or not, precisely the title sparkled the protest. And of course the "killer title" was deliberate, not just not a slip of tongue. It was a mass hysteria in the USA, just like they tried to find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and many other campaigns, to justify bombing someone (arsenals must be refreshed, you know, and it is cheaper to bomb someone than to safely dispose an old bomb (my pet theory :-)) mikka (t) 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Since we are using comparisons and I think that your reference to the mass hysteria about "weapons of mass destruction" realy refers to maybe Islamophobia (or maybe Arabophobia). As an example, prior to the invation of Iraq about 600 Arabs were arrested in USA as suspects of terrorism. They were held for varied lengths of time (some as long as 3 months) only to have one (1) person charged for violations of immigration law and others released. Speaking of mass hysteria I think most Americans don't even know who are Serbs and where Serbia is (and why should they). The NYT article is completely irrelevant for reasons that 1. it is incorect 2. it is an obscure opinion piece 3. has no basis in reality in portraying the contemporary culture in USA (to which it appeals) towards Serbs

This is not the evidence that is needed to justify this article --Dado 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Furthermore the title refers to Serbia Is on Trial. which could be interpreted as Serbia as institution is on trial and not Serbs as people. Last time I checked Serbia is country of many nations. If there are no further objections I will remove this sentance. --Dado 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The term was used, e.g., by Danon Cadik, Chief Rabbi of Yugoslavia et. al. in the open letter to the American Jewish Committee in 1995 during the bombing of the Serbs by Nato.

There is a matter of accuracy in using the term Serbophobia in this statement. The above Rabbi was refering to bombing of military positions of Republika Srpska Army during the Operation Deliberate Force whose objective was to undermine the military capability of Bosnian Serbs. Serbs as civilians were not the target. The use of the term is to say the least "wrong" and appeal to emotions to push particular POV agenda. --Dado 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am listing this article for deletion as the side who started this article has not presented valid claims and/or answered the issues raised on the discussion page. The last edit shows that we are dealing with an issue that is being "force-fed" to Wikipedia and it is not being done in good faith. In fact as the article currently stands it is being used for particular agenda and further POV pushing on other articles.--Dado 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Well now we have what seems to be a image of a weapon that was used in Jasenovac concentration camp. As much as I respect what happened to Serbs in Jasenovac, how is this image relevant for this article. It's place is on the article about Jasenovac or otherwise it is appeal to emotions and its relevance for this article is a stretch. --Dado 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it could be relevant because of its name? Nikola 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So far I have a feeling that I am leading a monologue here so if no one has anything to say about issues presented above I will be reverting the page to a version I think makes this article bareable and NPOV --Dado 23:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


1.Serbophobia is not a term in use in Croatian nor Bosnian language or it as much in use as in any other language. It is a term that was "manufactured" by the Serbian academics for reasons already mentioned in the article and it is perhaps only used in Serbia today. There is no reason to list any variations of the word except in Serbian.

I have easily found two Croatian examples: [1] and [2]. Nikola 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you Croatian but I still think it is used only as much as in any other language.--Dado 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2.Again we had a picture on this article that was nothing more than an appeal to emotions. It has nothing to do with the term itself.

I will return the other picture. That someone designed a knife specially for slaughtering Serbs and named it so is as good example of Serbophobia as one could get. Nikola 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe in your head. Quite a sick way to justify a political term. It was removed before and it should be removed again. Place it where it belongs (Jasenovac) --Dado 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3.Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This accusations/garbage is not helping and is highly offensive agenda especially since such claims cannot be proven.

I am attempting to make this article as neutral as possible something that I have said in my commentary about deletion that will be almost imposible to do and because of it the article would be best deleted. If the article is reverted again without discussions on this page it will be a vandalism in progress and could well see another round of deletion considerations.--Dado 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. The fact is that certain (the word some) groups of the mentioned people do hate Serbs. Like some Serbs hate these and other people.heh-you cannot say this is untrue.--TheFEARgod 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that it is untrue as no one can suffer from Serbophobia because it is not a phobia but a political accusation. In a same way the sentance above is an insulting political accusation and Wikipedia is not a place for spreading of political agenda. --Dado 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

prove Serbs are not hated among the people with whom the Serbs were at war!

Are you kidding me? You make a dubious claim and I have to prove it if it is true or not. What am I, your intern?

Dado, nisi domar ali si bezobrazan preko svake mere. Znas dobro da mnogi mrze Srbe, pocev od tebe samoga i jos trazis da ti neko to dokazuje. Stidi se, i to je najmanje sto ti mogu reci. Nikola 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation: Dado, you are not "domar" but you are arrogant above all. You know well that many hate Serbs, starting from yourself and than you ask for others to prove it to you. Be ashamed and that is least that I can tell you.

I asked others not to pin blame in a fascist manner to entire nations for something that is not even proven and is an insulting accusation. You are resorting to personal and emotional attacks now to discredit valid arguements that I have pointed out and you are making insulting accusations towards me personally. Perhaps you should check your behaviour on this and other articles of similar subject for a change. --Dado 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and POVing over entire Wikipedia, including this statement where you implied that I am a fascist. You have no valid arguments whatsoever. Nikola 13:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
A little less hypocracy wouldn't hurt you Smolenski. Dado never implied you were fascist, merely that you pinned blame in a "fascist manner". Do you remember this talk page Nikola? Here when User:HolyRomanEmperor called one of my notes "purely fascistic" you were quick to point out to me that "He didn't say that. One fascist remark doesn't mean that you are fascist overall."[3]. Well Nikola, here I'd like to point out that one instance of pinning the blame in a fascist manner doesn't mean that you are fascist overall either. Cheers. Asim Led 18:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article already talks about this term as a political statement so you cannot prove that anyone is suffering from this "phobia". Use your head and not your emotions for a change.

For psycholocical analysis or a case study of the war in Bosnia read "Than they started shooting: Growing Up In Wartime Bosnia" by Lynne Jones, for start. You need some serious reality check.

The article is being reverted --Dado 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed... Nikola 13:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Among those three nations Serbs have had far outnumbered other two nations, had far strongest political power and had their dinasty Karadjordjevici for a Yugoslavias rulers.

Why is this sentence relevant for this article? --Dado 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


There are at least 10 sentances (noted [citation needed]) that require a source or a citation. Until sources are provided or sentances are removed the article is considered Wikipedia:Original research. Removal of Original research warrning tag can be considered Wikipedia:Vandalism --Dado 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Croats were ruled by serbian king and serbian politians. Then, the Serbophobia was founded. Then the incidents started... There was a big one in parlament, then someone got shot... --Milan Tešovic 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh ?????--Dado 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dado

May I note that you seem the ideal person to illustrate this term, as you find the very word Serbophobia itself offensive. Why don't those Serbs just shut up and admit they belong to an evil genocidal nation, that deserves everything it gets, eh? Why do they keep insisting that they have rights too? Those goddamn pesky Serbs... ;) :) --estavisti 04:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest not to start a Balkan war here? I know, the topic is very heated, but please... Offensive or not, there is nothing surprising that many of these <ethnic>phobias are used on the both sides of barricades: one side is accused of a 'phobia, the other one retorts that it is a slander. mikka (t) 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, let's just keep and expand the article. --estavisti 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


So are you acusing me of racism if I am asking for author to present some evidence. It is quite remarkable how fast you go the full circle from implying Serbophobia as something Serbs should defend themselves from and than going into offense by acussing random people (who you know nothing about) of Serbophobia. --Dado 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dado, Serbophobia exists and very much (as for Croats, it is also combined with savage anti-Semitism) - and Jasenovac and Ustase can provide a definite proof for this. If you are blind it is your own problem. Yes Serbs are quite vengeful, but it wasn't them who started the bloodshed in Balkans. As for your native country, Bosnia, you can take the SS Hanjar division as a proof (created by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a great buddy of Hitler, BTW). I removed POV section marking since you do not refer to the article CONTENTS as POV, but to the TERM ITSELF as POV. And this is not correct. The contents are not biased, and the term is perfectly legitimate, as much as anti-Semitism, Armenophobia or Anglophobia. Remark: I am a pro-Serbian Israeli Jew born in ex-USSR. --Aleverde 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC+2)

estavisti, you are complitely right. Why don't those Serbs just shut up and admit they belong to an evil genocidal nation, that deserves everything it gets, eh? Why do they keep insisting that they have rights too? Those goddamn pesky Serbs... ;) :) --Milan Tešovic 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Notable / Neologism

Mikka, I suggest you temper your abrasive and offensive tone of voice. It buys you nothing here. I still claim that the term is not notable and most likely a neologism. It yields 430 Google hits many of which are duplicates of a WSJ article and many more of which are used on balkan related fora rather than on scholarly sites. I do find a single reference from around the WW1 period in a short bio of Franz Conrad von Hotzendorff [4] but as you can see for yourself it doesn't claim that he used the word himself; it more than likely was introduced by the bio writer. If you compare it with terms such as Russophobia (29.000 hits) or Sinophobia (14.400) the statistical (in)significance becomes even more obvious. Since the term bears so little recognition, its inclusion in Wikipedia is not justified IMHO other than to drive a self-victimizing POV. Chelman 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider use of alternative terms and use in other languages:
  • Serbophobia: 437
  • "Anti-serbism": 137
  • Serbophobie: 156 (French)
  • "anti-serbisme": 34
  • srbofobija OR србофобија: 720
Also, you are wrong when you say that many of the mentions are duplicates of WSJ article. Searching for a phrase from the article ("If the Albanians can make promises to protect Serb shrines") gives only 20 hits, and of those some are opinions about the article which present a quote from it. 20 of 430 is hardly many.
20 of 430 is nearly 5% This is statistically significant. Chelman 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Compare also real danger of Russians and Serbs. For examle, per Wikipedia articles, GDP of Serbia and Montenegro is $25.98 billion, while GDP of Russia is $1.408 trillion, which is 54 times more (GDP is relevant because a portion of it is used to finance the army; if Serbia and Montenegro and Russia dedicate same share of their GDP to the army, Russia could have an army that is 54 times stronger). Now, if you multiply 437 with 54, you arrive at 23,598, which is comparable to number of mentions of Russophobia.
Nice bit od number juggling there...but it's irrelevant. What does the size of the army and the countries GDP have to do with the existence of a disputed term. Zip. Chelman 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said, because it compares real danger of Serbs with perceived danger of Serbs. Nikola 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
And lastly, I don't think that Mikkalai's tone could be described as "abrasive and offensive". Nikola 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"self-victimizing POV": You are kidding. I am not Serb and never seen an alive Serb. And I dance Salsa with a Croat girl who says that both Serbs and Croats are idiots, that's why she lives in America now. mikka (t) 07:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Can somebody provide any source for definition of "Serbophobia"? As you all know :) Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. Otherwise, the article belongs to Wiktionary, at the best. Just because it was used, doesn't make it a worthy topic, so please provide some sources for the definition. --dcabrilo 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition is a tautology. It would be silly to quote a reference here. But if you reaaly insist, google is your friend: "Serbophobia – the notion that the Serbs as a whole were guilty of events in the Balkans over the past decade, and that Milosevic merely personified the entire nation." One may easily find more. Also, please read carefully wikipedia:Original research. Reporing facts is not Original Research. Explanations and theories are. mikka (t) 06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This would make more sense. The word definately exists but simply does not warrant an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Chelman 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? Nikola 09:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

Well, since neologisms are not allowed on Wikipedia, there should be speedy deletion of Islamophobia, for example. I believe explaining the meaning of the word in a different way can solve the problem.

Interesting analogy. I wonder why you selected Islamophobia.--Dado 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, I didn't select Islamophobia for any specific reason, except that it's about an anti-ethnic term and it's a neologism, according to the article itself. Only that. I could have mentioned "Brazilianphobia"... if there was an article with this name! (I've just found out that there's a Lusophobia article. But this was a feeling very common in the nineteenth century. Nowadays, it's almost forgotten. ;-) (Milena 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Hope I can help somehow.

Milena 16:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • When I arrived from work, I thought of something: maybe re-writing the article and merging into Yugoslav wars could be a good idea, since the term appears to be from the time of those wars.

Milena 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And this maybe the answer to my question above as much of the Islamophobia could be associated with these wars as well. Could it be that the reason for this article was to counter some of the bad rap Serbs got during Yugoslav wars, as a tool of appologists and to portray Serbs as victims of phobia. Just a thought.

I would still prefer to see some scientific evidence on this matter rather than to shove it into a muddle of Yugoslav Wars. --Dado 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Dado, I suggested merging it into the article about the Yugoslav wars just noting that, here in Brazil, I could see good examples of the bad repercussion of those wars on the image of the few Serbian immigrants (and their families). Only that. It seems you misunderstood me, I'm really sorry... Milena 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


I found a reference in book Communication in Eastern Europe: The Role of History, Culture, and Media in Contemporary Conflicts, itself published in 1995, by Fred L. Casmir (who is Professor of Communication, Coordinator International Studies Major Division of Communication, and International Studies major at Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA): Furthering this incipient nation-fever was the extraordinary memorandum issued to the public in 1986 by the prestigious Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, condemning the perceived presence of "Serbophobia" in the central government of Yugoslavia. Is a word still a neologism after 20 years of use? Nikola 04:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at List of anti-ethnic terms. What not include other there? HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article is about term found in newspapers and books. You don`t like it? So do I. But this term is still in use. --JustUser 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the article. But it is bound to improve (one way or another). By the way; if it deals just with the term (the actual word) it belongs to the wikidictionary, not encyclopedia. HolyRomanEmperor 12:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor, I think you gave two good ideas, including it in the List of anti-ethnic terms and moving to wiktionary could be a solution. Milena 10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ask? 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia on trial

A while above the following phrase:

Furthermore the title refers to Serbia Is on Trial. which could be interpreted as Serbia as institution is on trial and not Serbs as people. Last time I checked Serbia is country of many nations. If there are no further objections I will remove this sentance. --Dado 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You may interpret as you wish, but those who are offended intrepret it quite differently. Also, you are omitting (intentionally or not) two very short words that seriously change the meaning: it is not "Serbia on Trial", but "all of Serbia is on Trial". Also, rather than "interpreting" and guessing, I would strongly suggest to read the aricle. mikka (t) 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quotation for lazy ones of you:

"A criminal trial in Belgrade for embezzlement or even murder would not expose the ways in which thousands of Serbs were involved in and profited from war crimes committed by Milosevic's government. During the Bosnian war, for instance, hundreds of semitrailer truckloads of stolen goods were transported out of Bosnia and into Serbia. "

So the journalist knew what he was doing: he fully intentionally equated a dictator and a bunch of thugs (the ones which may be found during any war to suck blood the others shed) with "all of Serbia". mikka (t) 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The "dictator" (which was democratically elected may I remind) was running the country. He was a legal representative of the country and as a result had to bear the responsibilities and consequences of his actions. Because of his high leadership position it is logical that the entire nation would be affected by his decision, as they were with economic sanctions. Still the author of the article did not specifically point nor implied (in a secion that you pasted) that he refers to the Serbs as a nation. If he had stated anywhere in the article Milosevic Is Accused, but All of Serbs are on Trial than you may have a point. Currently it is a streach to use this as an example and a poor analysis of the op-ed piece.

Even if I add the two words "all of Serbia is on trial" this could refer to all of citizens of Serbia which includes other ethnic groups as well. However, I still don't find that the author's intent was to pin the blame on any nation, but a country. I do not have the entire article to read and this is a second time that you are resorting to diminutive phrases (for lazy ones of you) towards others. As I have pointed out to Pokrajac, since the word in itself is disputed and highly controversial political accusation this article will go nowehere as long as it attempts to pin the blame for Serbophobia to someone especially more contemporary sources such as NY Times. --Dado 16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • "diminutive" That's exactly why I am resorting to a diminutive phrase: "you don't have the entire article", yet you are insisting on judging its intentions. mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "I still don't find": Once again: did you read the article or not? Or shall I go to the librarly, make a photocopy and mail it to you? mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you provide the link to the article? I thought I was clear. I did not read the article because you have not provided the link. My thoughts are based on the information that you provided here. --Dado 02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does not "pin the blame" onto anybody. It merely lists facts. And the fact is that the article title was interpreted as an example of serbophobia in Serbian press. mikka (t) 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is new information. If you can prove that it was interpreted by the Serbian press in that way than we may be able to work-out a solution.--Dado 02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

I don't want to talk about disputed content, just about something which I don't understand in diff between two versions: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. In the Albanian source something with abbervation "AIM" is mentioned. AIM means a lot of things; may someone specify it (or remove the internal link)? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think that User:Macedonian removed a link to the article in Macedonian. As I think, the sense of the links is not making examples of Serbophobia, but making examples of mentioning the term (or similar terms), I think that it should be kept. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't understand why some general links about/from Serbia exist inside of this article? Maybe some internal link to Serbs and/or to Serbia can be useful, but I think that those links are nonsense. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diff

This one (last one), of course. --millosh (talk (sr:))

I am not sure about the photo of the knife... It is an example of extreme serbophobia, but I am not completely sure do this belong here. In other words, I don't know should it be here or not. Hm. Maybe some photo with more sense can stay here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But, I think that we can solve the paragraph: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

One edit: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions. Serbophobia is spread today among some Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.

Another edit: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions. The term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people.

I think that it is clear that both paragraphs have true statemants: Yes, a lot of Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians from Kosovo have anti-Serb(ian) feelings (which is the definition of serbophobia) 'and, yes, it is used as a political tool to blame (not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians from Kosovo. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, my suggestion of the paragraph is (correct my English): --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the term was used rather sporadically in the past it is almost always considered to be misused in order to gain points on certain political agenda by appealing to emotions.
As a behaviour, Serbophobia is spread today among some (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.
As a political accusation, the term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians (but not only them) as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people.

Does anyone has something against this proposal? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are starting with the premise that Serbophobia is a psychological condition as its name implies yet there is 0 evidence or proof that this can be considered as such so your starting premise is wrong. I thought that the rest of the article and prior discussion are clear about that and I will not go any further into it.

Quote: As a behaviour, Serbophobia is spread today among some (but not only) Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. This feeling made the environment in which many Serbs were expelled or they simply left their homes in Krajina in 1995 and in Kosovo in 1999.

The article is about the political term "Serbophobia" as it is used in the political sense and as a subject of a debate. As such no one can actually "suffer" from serbophobia as your segment is implying. Any implications that someone is "suffering" from Serbophobia is at the same time a political acusation and nothing more. You even go a step further to state that the Serbophobia is "spread" as if it is a disiease. The last sentence is again an extension of the first as it reapeats that it is a "feeling" but it is even worse as it is ambigious and self defeating by stating some Serbs "simply left their homes". It would not pass even as a false theory. In its mildest form the whole segment is an example of personal analisys, something that is not acceptable on Wikipedia (not even to mention that it is potentially Wikipedia:Libel).

Regarding the image, I have repeatedly said that it is an appeal to emotions while it has nothing to do with the term itself. Some have even gone to claim a conection between first part of the name Serbo-sjek and Serbo-phobia which is ridiculous. The image has a lot more to do with facsist regime in NDH and Jasenovac concentration camp so it should be placed there. Using it here for political purposes is outright degrading. --Dado 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree about the image. It has nothing to do with the article. Milena 10:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
E, uopste mi nije to bilo na pameti. Rekoh "correct my English". Ocigledno je da "ponasanje" ima drugo primarno znacenje u engleskom. Ustanovilo se (kako mi se cini ranije) da se ne govori o psihickoj pojavi nego o drustvenoj. Ako si na to mislio. Preslozi sam u smislu etnicke netrpeljivosti, koja je fakt. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Drugim recima, to jeste i netrpeljivost prema jednom etnicitetu, a i koristi se kao politicka optuzba. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ponovo greska. Ne radi se ni o drustvenoj ni psihickoj pojavi vec o politickoj optuzbi. Da bi pojam bio drustvena ili psihicka pojava ona mora biti naucno dokazana sto u ovom slucaju nije nikad uradjeno (niti vidim kako moze biti). Posto ovaj termin se inherentno odnosti na zadnje ratove i prvenstveno na rat u BiH mozda jedina i vjerovatno najbolja analiza psiholoskih posljedica rata i odnosa medju ljudima mozes naci u knjizi koju sam gore naveo :"Than they started shooting: Growing Up In Wartime Bosnia" by Lynne Jones (za pocetak) koja je mozda i jedina do sad napisana na temu psihologije i drustvene dinamike poslijeratnog perioda u BiH. Neznam da li trebam uopste napominjati da se Srbofobija nigdje i ne pominje.

Etnicka netrpeljivost je nesto sto se nemoze oznaciti ni kao "Srbofobija", "Hrvatofobija" ili "Bosnjakofobija" vec kao kompleksna kombinacija pobrkanih licnih i kolektivnih interesa. Udaranje pecata na tu dinamiku kao vrstu fobija je samo simplisticna politicka manipulacija kako bi se narod zaglupio i drzao pod kontrolom.

Na kraju bih savjetovao da ako se ova konverzacija mora produziti da se vratimo na engleski kako ne bi iskljucivali ostala potencijalna misljenja. --Dado 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Da, u pravu si sto se tice slike. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Nece se duziti. Shvatio sam da ne vredi pricati. Necu se vise baviti ovim clankom. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, why not writing in English??? Milena 10:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
(1) Communication for us is more easy then in English. (2) Sometime it is more easy to solve problem without others. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points but sometimes an extra voice doesn't hurt.--Dado 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We didn't solve anything, so conversation can be continued in English. (Also, I don't want to work on this article anymore because I don't see how the problem can be solved.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that there was anything to solve except the disputed content version that was being reverted and a picture (which we apparently did solve). Let me know if you have any issues with the version that I talked about. --Dado 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To reverter

Why does the info I added about racial slurs keep getting reverted? If there is a word which is used exclusively as a racial slur for Serbs, that seems like extremely relevent information to this article.

because the reverter wants to prove that there is no hatred towards Serbs and that they are the only negative side in the 1991-1999 Balkan wars.--TheFEARgod 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
or because racial slurs have nothing to do with serbophobia which is defined as a political acusation and (for the hundreth time) not as a phobia in a pscychological sense as the name is trying to imply or as the above user is agressivelly pushing. For a condition to be accepted as a phobia one needs to have scientific proof and it is where this term (serbophobia) fails misserably. The burden of proof has made this article acceptable only if it refers to a political accusation.

Racial slurs have alot more to to with dehumanisation of a particular ethnic group or race and are related to nationalism and in a severe case to fascist doctrine. Racial slurs used for dehumanisation are also found in Eight Stages of Genocide.

I suggest you to read the discussion above. --Dado 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming it is a psychological condition, you assumed that simply because it has phobia in its name. It is simply a dislike of Serbs, nothing more nothing less. Russophobia is a universally accepted term used to describe dislike of Russians, yet no one claims that's a psychologicla condition. Serbophobia is a dislike of Serbs and if there is an ethnic slur used for Serbs that needs to be mentioned in this article.


I am not claiming that it is phobia. That is in fact my point. The article starts with the premise that the term is an acusation. However your first segments that you have added is deceptively implying that it is in fact a condition (phobia), as something that is found among some group etc etc.. Perhaps we can resolve it this way

Another example of the term being used as an acusation is the interpretation of the word shkija as Serbophobic, which in the Albanian language is a derogatory word for Serbs used by Albanians and as similar to how nigger is used by white supremacists in the USA.

Second segment is completely wrong and short of completely deleting it I don't see a fix. For now I am reverting the segment that you have deleted and we can add the one above if you agree.--Dado 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding latest version proposed by anonymous user, following item is possibly acceptable:

The term is used in a non-clinical sense. While the term has entered mainstream usage in Serbian, its use in the English language has been limited and it does not appear in major English dictionaries.

The section that was added "Examples of Serbophobia" is a fairy tale and completely unsubstantiated. Section "Criticism" is just badly written as if only Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians think that Serbophobia does not exist. Let me remind that most of the accusations of Serbophobia were directed towards western world.--Dado 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The section clearly says: Some people, mostly Croats, Bosniaks, and Kosovar Albanians. It is complete opposite of what you say it says. Nikola 13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


We can add mostly to this version

The term is generally used today as a political tool to pin the blame mostly on Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovo's Albanians as a reaction of the alienation of Serbs during the wars with these people. --Dado 16:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your gripe with the current revision? It even has a criticism section to provide the other pov. What is not npov about it?

I think I have explained it at least 5 times above. Read it. I have also proposed 3 other versions but no one seams to listen here. Your continued ingnoring of other's views is quickly turning this article into vandalism.--Dado 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. The part that says "the term is generally used as a political tool to pin the blame on Croats/Muslims/Albanians" is completely untrue and has no place in the article. Imagine if someone put such a claim in the anti-semitism article. Doctor Robotnik 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


You have not read a thing I wrote and you are arrogantly ignoring arguements. There is 0 evidence that this term can be considered in a phobic sense and that is what current version is suggesting especially in first section and in examples and criticism sections. There is 0 analysis done on this subject in the field of psychology. Only place where this term is used is in politics and that is where most of the sources are based. Your reference to anti semitism makes no sense at all. This article has passed AfD voting on a premise that the article can be written only as defining political accusation. Otherwise we are dealing here with neologism and original research niether of which are permited on Wikipedia and which could justify a complete deletion of this article. --Dado 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dado, since this article has been written, you are doing nothing but reverting it. You add nothing to the discussion and are not providing any arguments. There is 0 evidence that this term can be considered in a phobic sense - the article does not say it does, anywhere; to the contraty, it clearly says that the term is used in a non-clinical sense. On the other hand your version says that Serbophobia is a political accusation of hatred towards Serbs, which is completely not true. The term is not neologism, being 20 years old, and the article doesn't have original research. So I am reverting to the other version. Nikola 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Since this article has been written it has been a playground of serbian nationalist trying to sell the notion that Serbophobia is something that Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians are suffering from which would somehow explain why there was a war in Bosnia or in Kosovo. It is an insulting insunuation and it borders Personal attack and libel. You have quoted one sentence from your version that is not actually disputed and it can be found in both versions so what you are obviously trying to do is to divert the issue that is obvious in sections "Examples" and "Criticism". Other than stating it is not true, which is your extent of the argument, what other proof do you have that is nothing more than a political acusation. The term can be a neologism if you are defining it differently from what it is. I have provided plenty arguments and I have a feeling that I am leading a monologue on this discussion page as everyone else see's this article as a battlefield. --Dado 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is upon you to prove that Serbophobia is a political accusation of hatred towards Serbs. Serbophobia is hatred towards Serbs, period. Whether some people are unjustifiedly accused of hating Serbs when they really don't is another matter entirely. Nikola 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

An it is up to you to prove that I am not an alien reporting from another planet while impersonating an earthling. How is it that when you make a dubious statement I have to prove it is not true. Only sources provided on this article are of a political nature --Dado 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article is now protected. Please find a way to gain consensus on how to proceed, and when you are ready, place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. If you need assistance with the dispute, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you look at these examples, on how to write a concise, NPOV article that exlplains the term:
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If the subject needs to be expanded, it would rather have an article on Serbian ressentiment, in which these political views can be explored and described. We can then merge any tidbits about the use of the term "Serbophobia" by Serbian nationalists and others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Protected ages ago, no ongoing discussion. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

One of the most known consequences of Serbophobia is a denial of genocide and other war crimes commited over Serbs in Bosnia (1992-1995) and Croatia (1995). Using the Srebrenica massacre and other proofen and non-proofen war crimes media have created an illusion that the Serbs have started those wars, are the aggresors and the only guilty ones.

Says who? Provide proof and sources. This may be the worst kind of denial of genocide that took place in Srebrenica that I don't know where to begin --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the war in Bosnia Bosnian muslims call themselfs Bosniaks so they could convince the world that they are only domestic people of Bosnia. This has created the illusion that Serbs are invading the Bosnia (since Serbia is a neighbour country).

Says who? Provide proof and sources? Beside being a total nonsense it stipulates that most of the world is stupid enough to be fooled by Bosniaks into an illusion?--Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will also add here some comments about the previous talk since it would be stupid to add up there. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New York Times putting «all of Serbia in trial» is not the discusion. Many saw the trial, not just Milosevics, but all trials in Hague as a judging «all of Serbia». One view is that NYTs headline only suggested that Serbophobia does exist. Still don't forget that this article is just an example, Serbophobia and anti-Serbism (my opinion is that those are two different things) exist in all European and North American countries, and in most of the world (among people, press, politicians and other). --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your logic of how you reach a conclusion that something is Serbophobia is an absolute absurdity. An NY Times article may have a poor title but it proves nothing. See above discussions for more information --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia in the North America and Europe had high influence on the outcome of Kosovo war in 1999. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Provide sources and proof.--Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dado sad: Prior to the invation of Iraq about 600 Arabs were arrested in USA as suspects of terrorism. They were held for varied lengths of time (some as long as 3 months) only to have one (1) person charged for violations of immigration law and others released. You are apsolutely right. After 9/11 there was a lot of prejustice toward Arabs. But since the reason was terrorism, there wasn't as much «all of Arabs» prejustice. Still Serbs are no more guilty (even less) then muslims and Croats for the war and war crimes, but from palestina to Afganistan muslims are knowen over terrorism (in Iraq they even terrorise their own people for supporting the goverment controled by the States). --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What a hell are you talking about. What does any of this has to do with your point. --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of Serbia could include of all Republic of Serbia but it doesn't. It includes of of the Serbs as a nation. It's clear what it means, but you can see it differently, still you should keep that one for yourself, and not publish that thought on Wikipedia. --Milan Tešovic 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I should point out that victimization of Serbs was a well established and documented political doctrine used by the Serbian politician and media in early 90's to cause a rise among Serbs. This victimization began with celebration of 400 year old Battle of Kosovo (where Serbs were defeated by Turks) and ended with identifying Bosniaks as Turks who should be taken revenge on. Serbophobia is just another kind of the same political doctrine yet a very weak one given the obviousness that it serves only to appeal to emotions. To those dim witted it serves as a "scientific" justification of propaganda they have been fed by the politicians. This is evident that in almost 6 months since this article was first created there was 0 scientific proof presented and more serious users like Milosh have given up on this article because it is obviously such a lost cause. --Dado 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutral version written by me, Nikola Smolenski, Miloš and also a part written by Dado should remain and any act of deleting parts should be regarded as vandalism.--TheFEARgod 16:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your and Nikola's version is not neutral. Milosh has not contributed to the article as you are claiming it other than made suggestions on this discussion page so it is unlear if he would support your view. I do not subscribe to this version and you now it. You don't have the authority to decide what is vandalism contrary to the rules. --Dado 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
also, persons like Demicx who have not contributed to WRITING in this article shuold not revert any content written by other people.--TheFEARgod 16:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Also you do not have the authority to prevent and bully users from expressing their view even in a way where they are simply deciding which version is more appropriate for this subject. --Dado 16:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Milant, I have been very clear about my position so I would aks you not to simplify it in your justification for pushing agenda that are insulting accusation and outright lies. I have asked repeatedly for you and others to present sources for your claims. The entire section "Examples of Serbophobia" is so bad that I don't see a fix to it other than to remove it completely. Again, this article has passed the Deletion only on the ground that the term can be defined as the political accusation. If you do not stop I will put this article once again for deletion as it is obviously a flame bait and libel risk. --Dado 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I was unaware, whern I first tagged this for AfD, that it had already managed to pass one — the notification of the result was non-standard and buried half-way down the Talk page. It still seem to me that the article's main, if not only, real purpose is to act as a lightning rod for political opinions, hence the interminable edit-warring; therefore, I'm going through with the second AfD. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

This article is nonsense and its aimed to promote a certain political agenda. None hates Serbs as such. There are many people who consider the policies of Serbia and the beliefs of the Serbian elite as outdated and criminal. But that doesn't have to do with Serbs as a people or an ethnic group. I personally think that Serbian history books glorify criminals and crime. Serbian expanssionism is based on anti-humane values. But I don't hate nor fear Serbs as people. Thinking that Hitler was a criminal and that his policies were criminal doesn't one make a 'Germanophobe.' I fully agree tht this article needs to be deleted.

Maybe if you were a serb travelling abroad, going thru different customs, waiting for more than a minute while officers scrutinize your passport and visa and look at you in a certain way (while for others it takes few seconds and no strange looks), maybe if you've been in serbian skin, you would know that this article is not a total nonsense, but there is some thruth to it. Ask serbians how easily they get visas to travel to foreign countries. Why is that the case? Lakinekaki 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful. The only problem being that this article doesn't even attempt to mention that. Live Forever 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Attention!! important parts of the text are getting lost! example, the sentence with the word shkija oftenly disappears! check the page history.--TheFEARgod 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. do not delete the picture. It portraits an act of pure serbophobia (killing of Serbs in NDH -equal to Judeophobic sentiment in Germany)--TheFEARgod 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and you are removing a large part of important texts and adding unsubstantiated and unsourced garbage. Picture has nothing to do with the term. It is horrific, it is appaling but it is also an appeal to emotions. Most of all it is what has been proven as fascism and nationalism during NDH. You cannot attribute it to a term Serbophobia when the term or at least the definition of the term itself is disputed. --Dado 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I don't speak Serbian, is the Serbian version [5] biased? --Latinus 16:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes it is. --Dado 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dado, you're simply provoking and lying now. No need to stoop that low... The Serbian article simply says: Serbophobia is a feeling of animosity or hatred towards Serbs or Serbia. If you think that's biased, then you really are a piece of work. Your entire involvement with this article has been obstructive, and - ironically - Serbophobic. Now of course, you're going to say that I'm a Serbian nationalist and that you're being unfairly accused blah blah blah. --estavisti 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can see on your user page that you are Serbian nationalist. Why are you so nationalistic? A term "serbophopbia" simply does not exist in the English language. Croatian historian 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Estavisti, what I have repeatedly asked for and what is in line with policies and the way encyclopedic article should be written is that every claim should be supported by facts and sources. What has been written on Serbian wikipedia is false and propagandistic and most of all it lacks sources and factual support. I have said repeatedly that image is horrific as was the image "Srbosjek" that was added before, but they have nothing to do with the concept. On the other hand I find it quite perverse to use such image for what is clearly a political accusation. --Dado 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This has reached absurd levels. I've protected the page against further edit warring; I suggest that editors start discussing the issues like intelligent adults, instead of squabbling like bad-tempered children. I'll keep an eye on things, and unprotect if it looks as though the edit warring is likely to stop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume from the deafening silence that no-one wants the protection to be lifted? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Mel, I have stated my arguements and I am open for discussion but I believe some users are only waiting out the period while the article is locked to come back and restart the edit war once it is unlocked again. --Dado 22:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my suspicion; they'll have a long wait, though, as I'm not going to unprotect the article until the issues have been discussed here, and it's clear that edit-warring is not going to restart. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robotnik

The claim that the term is used only by "serbian nationalists" is not true at all. This is a lame attempt by some ustasha to discredit the article. I suggest this claim be removed. Doctor Robotnik 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Your accusations of others as Ustasha makes your arguement less of a good faith attempt to make this article better. --Dado 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone edited the introductory paragraph to claim that the term is used only by Serbian nationalists, and that it was introduced as part of Serbian "victimization politics". This is a valid argument, but it CANNOT be claimed as a FACT, the way it is right now. There is a CRITICISM section for that, and the criticism section already mentions that some people claim that the term is used for the purpose of nationalism and for "victimization politics". It is inappropriate to mention that in the very FIRST paragraph, and even more innappropriate to present it as a FACT when it is the opinion of only one side. That's what the criticism section is for. The opening paragraph of the previous revision was much more NPOV. Doctor Robotnik 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


How about this:

"Serbophobia (Serbian, Croatian: србофобиjа, srbofobija), is a political accusation used to allege a sentiment of hostility or hatred towards Serbs, Serbia, or Republika Srpska. The term is used in a non-clinical sense, and is nearly non-existent in the English language. It was introduced in the late 1980s as part of the of Serbian victimization politics led by Dobrica Cosic and Slobodan Milosevic."


I also eliminated term "anti-Serbism" as that can actually be a legitimate theory and should not be muddled with this neologism. Last sentance is properly sourced so it can be used as a fact. It is in fact that the only use of this term can be traced to recent history and primarily by certain levels in Serbian politics.--Dado 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Better, but not quite. The claim that it's a political accusation is only an opinion and thus belongs in the critiism section. The claim that it's part of "victimization politics" (I don't agree there is such a thing as victimization politics in Serbia, at least not to any greater degree than in any other Balkan country) is also something that should only be in the criticism section. Doctor Robotnik 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The term was only used in politics and unlike other phobia's there is no scientific or historical material available that proves Serbophobia as anything other than a political accusations. Also justifying this term with similar terms (such as Francophobia) and drawing illogical parallels still does not define this term on a equal level. Just because others are justified this one is not and needs to bear same burden of proof. Even when the term is used in non political speeches it is placed in quotations as a reference to what some Serbian politicians consider an attack on Serbs or Serbia.

Your belief that there is no or was no victimization politics in Serbia is exactly that, your belief and your POV. The source provided claims otherwise. The source that talks about the victimization politics is quite comprehensive and very important to shed light on this subject from both sides. I'd suggest you read it. You may be right that victimization politics are probably employed in other Balkan regions (Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, reference) but here we are talking about Serbian in particular. There is as much belief that Serbophobia is a matter of political doctrine of victimisation as there are actual uses of the term so placing the term in the context of the Serbian politics at the start of the article is quite justified. --Dado 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


The term is not used only by politicians, it has entered mainstream usage in Serbian and is used by everyone. So your entire argument is moot. It is no more a political accusation than Russophobia or anti-semitism are. Doctor Robotnik 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The authors rights

Sorry, but the authors of this page are completely right about writing this page. This is not a political propaganda, but is a true fact. Read the article carefuly and you will find those facts. Deleting this page is not a humankind act. Aeternus 14:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD - Anti-Bosniak Sentiment

Please visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Bosniak_sentiment. Your comments will be appreciated. Regards, Asterion 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

Does someone know about the genocide that was made for albanians by serbs? Watch more documentaries about Kosovo. You can find them in archives of BBC and other mega televisions. Then you will really understand the "Serbophofia" article. Aeternus 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Make an article Albanophobia. --Pockey 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL please don't! Doctor Robotnik 02:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally POV

The term is not a political accusation, any more than terms such as Anti-Semitism are. Neither is it non existant in the English language. i.e. "The Croatian media launched a campaign that pandered to the worst excesses of Croatian Serbophobia." Silber and Little, 1995, p.155. This was quoted in numerous publications, including (off the top of my head) in "The war next door - A study of second track intervention during the war in ex-Yugoslavia" by Judith Large. Serbophobia should be unlocked ASAP, and probably taken to arbitration. It has survived not one, but two votes for deletion, and letting it waste away is a crying shame. --estavisti 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms has a lot of links to -phobia articles which are not written to illustrate their titles, but to explain them. i.e. at Francophobia there is no reference to non-clinical terms, no reference to political accusations, no reference to French nationalists etc. Instead we get (as it should be, more or less):
Francophobia is a consistent hostility toward the government, culture, history, or people of France or the Francophonie. Contemporary prejudice against the French often derives from criticisms from the immediate post-World War II period and the way of life of the artistic and philosophic elite of the time. Although those prejudices are widespread today, Francophobia has existed for centuries and adopted very different forms.
The article on Serbophobia should be developed with strong reference to other -phobia articles, to avoid getting into a cul-de-suc, such as the one we're in now. --estavisti 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the fact that such an approach has proved to be impossible for the polarised editors that the article is unprotected. Note that articles can't be taken to arbitration — that's for editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock this

I dont see the reason for locking of the article. Any text can be improved only by revision. So, forget about edit wars, about who-did-what-to-whom & try to compose a rational & balanced article. Mir Harven 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the reason can be obscure. The article was the subject of constant edit-warring. The parties concerned seem content to spar with one another on this page, with no interest in reaching any sort of consensus. As has been suggested above, they may well be tring to wait out the enforced cease-fire. Until there's some sign here that the edit-warring won't start immediately the protection is lifted, though, what grounds are there for lifting it? If there were any sign that the editors were prepared to behave rationally and in a well-balanced way, in order to produce a rational and well-balanced article, the protection would be lifted immediately. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm...yes, I see your point (I haven't followed the debate/edit war). Mir Harven 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, having said all that, let's give it a try. I'll make clear now that if there's any edit-warring, the protection will be slapped back again without warning. That will mean that the article is locked in a state that many editors will hate. If they don't want to risk that, then they should try to edit sensibly, maturely, and after reaching consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I'm adding the template for this:

Rebecca West, a noted and consistent admirer of the Serbs

Among other things... - FrancisTyers 11:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


I have added a link to West's stands towards Serbs although I find the statement a bit strange anyway so if you want to remove it I support it.--Dado 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be just as well to include an example of someone who supports the Serb cause and criticizes claims of Serbophobia, which in effect she is. Septentrionalis 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What are "other things"? --Dado 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a compromise version

I tried to make a compromise, NPOV version. I hope everybody is sensible and tries to stop the edit war and prevent the page being protected again in a terrible POV form, as Mel Elitis threatened it would be. I have included everything that seemed reasonable from the two earlier versions, and tried to make the total impression neutral.

Sorry I didn't place the proposed text on the talk page first, but I was afraid it would take more time for people to react, and the reaction might come too late. I hope you suggest how this version can be improved, instead of just reverting to one of the old versions.

Some things that I did:

  • changed the introduction to something more NPOV, so that it doesn't say categorically that the critics of the concept are right, as in the non-Serbian version, or that they aren't, as in the Serbian version. Also added a source for the statement in the non-Servian version that previously lacked one (the internet source that had been provided before didn't refer to Serbophobia as such).
  • rearranged everything, so that 1. examples, 2. concrete instances of use and 3. history are differentiated from one another. I found the previous situation totally unorganized and confusing. The examples are arranged in an order starting with moderate, abstract things and ending with concrete gossip-like stuff.
  • fixed some (not all) of the grammar and the spelling.
  • Added some details and clarifications.
  • Removed the revolting image that doesn't add any info.
  • Placed more citation tags.

I think that, if you accept that, everybody should be expected to provide sources for the [citation needed]-tagged things within a week or two, or else the statements in question should be moved to the talk page.

Well, does anybody agree/disagree with what I've done? --85.187.44.131 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clumsy

This article is a mess. The very term is a variant of other negative terms regarding Serbs (as I recall, I've read "srbožder" in "Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika", JAZU/HAZU, referring to- I'm not sure- Vuk's German explanation as "Serbenfresser" in the 1852. dictionary). So, it's nothing new & not a big deal at all. Anytime a nation makes appearance on the history stage, someone will bi pissed. Serbophobia, as a lemma, is just a version of some of these older designations (again, I've read this exact term somewhere in Matoš's essays dated ca. 1910.). So, I don't see any problem with the name itself. As for the content, let the Serbs catalog their grievances & they will be commented upon and given a more objective general presentation. Frankly-I don't see the reason for such a fuss. Mir Harven 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some outsider's ideas

Demonisation of Serbs/Serbophobia in the popular press: Well, I still remember how the tabloids were happy to blame the Serbs when Jill Dando was killed. The UK tabloid headlines at the time read: "Was it a Serb who killed Jill Dando?", "Serb Assasin Did It", ... The ensuing articles went on to say there were no leads whatsoever at that point. From which The Sun concluded "oh well, must have been a Serb then". Mark Steel, in The Independent, wrote about this a while ago. Prof. Phillip Hammond's book Degraded Capability also covers the subject. Regards, Asterion talk to me 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estavisti's edits

Serbophobia is regarded, among many if not all neutral historians, as a nationalist invention, at least originally. The fact that it isn't mentioned in English dictionaries shouldn't be removed either.

Also, renaming it was a bad idea. The entire article is based on the TERM Serbophobia. Right now, the contents of the article have little to do with its title. Very bad indeed, to say the least. --85.187.44.131 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti hasn't changed the contents in accordance with the new title. And he shouldn't have changed the title without preliminary discussion in the first place. --85.187.44.131 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. as for the actual change, nobody had been complaining about the "clinical condition" for some time now. And "anti-Serbism" gives 65 google hits, as opposed to 1,470 for "Serbophobia". --Anonymous44 14:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (yes, I'm the same guy)

Just looking at this my question would be on the sence, or lack of, in the above statement: "Serbophobia is regarded, among many if not all neutral historians, as a nationalist invention, at least originally. The fact that it isn't mentioned in English dictionaries shouldn't be removed either."
this is ahisotric. There was a documetned genocide of the Serbs in this century, some 400,000 to 600,000 according to Holocaust and genocide scholars in Israel. Its roots were most certainly Serbophobic. The cause of genocide of half a million people based on their Serbian ethnicty is not an "nationalist invention."72.75.42.6 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SrbIzLike's edits

The edits were unsourced. Besides that, I think they should go to the history and not to the examples section. --85.187.44.131 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have removed the Spanish article, as though the word is mentioned, the rest of the text does not back the ideas expressed in the wikipedia article. E Asterion u talking to me? 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be renamed

The term is actually 'Serbiphobia', not 'Serbophobia'. - (202.180.98.82 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] POV dispute

Can those who dispute something please make their specific concerns known here, so that they can be discussed? If no one comes forward, the POV tag will be removed in a week's time. --estavisti 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people who assert that Serbophobia doesn't exist, and that the term is used as a political tool by Serbs to pin the blame on others for their own wrongdoings. and so on. Nikola 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Па среди то онда. Ово је ту због тога што неки Бошњаци су се жалили да чланак је POV, у фазону "нико не мрзи те јебене ћетнике, србофобија не постоји". --estavisti 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"which reminded Serbs" or "The sticking of these objects into anus had a symbolic purpose to remind Serbs to the time of Ottoman rule when many Serbs were executed by being impaled." are interpretations of the events and this is POV.Bendeguz 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV to include interpretation, as long as they're clearly labelled as such? --estavisti 21:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it was Panonian's or your (some people) interpretation and nothing else. And what you mean, is Kurir a serious newspaper? And do not cheat with quotations. Bendeguz 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well the media's interpretation is relevant here. What do you mean by "do not cheat with quotations"? Maybe you didn't notice the title of the article is "Kolac"? Do you know what "nabijanje na kolac" is? Everything is sourced, and purposely deleting sourced statements is considered vandalism. Unless you have something new to say here, please don't revert again. --estavisti 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favoring the end of Republika Srpska ≠ Serbophobia

Well, I (and many other journalists and people in Bosnia, Europe and around the world — [6], [7]) am in favor of the abolition of the Orthodox Bosnian Serb Republic and the Muslim-Catholic Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in favor of a unitary, secular and liberal democratic republic of Bosnia. Am I Serbophobic? Well, I don’t think so, since I’m against the genocide of Serbs, or the extinction of the Serbia, or the banning of Serbian Orthodox Church. And being against Greater Serbia or the horrendous Srebrenica massacre (like the actor Richard Gere and TV station PBS) obvioulsly doesn’t mean being Serbophobic/racist, too.--MaGioZal 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are Serbophobic, mister MaGioZal (or what ever). If you want to abolish the country which 1,600,000 people consider to be their homeland, then you are Serbophobic. How would you feel if somebody abolish your own country and include it into another country? I am sure you would be happy... PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Brazil exists since 1500 (initially as part of Portuguese Empire), since 1822 as an independent country, since 1899 as a secular federal republic that has been continuosly democratic since 1985. Republika Srpska exists since 1992 (and somehow recognized just in 1995) and was created basically due to ethnic cleansing commanded by the trio Milosevic-Karadzic-Mladic (special guest: Arkan) during Bosnian War. As can be seen on this image, there was no uniform and contiguous Serb, Croat, Bosniak or whatever population by the time prior to Yugoslav Wars:
Distribution of Orthodox Bosnian Serbs (in red), Catholic Bosnian Croats (blue) and Muslim Bosnian Bosniaks (green) in Bosnia in 1991. The white lines represents the “Inter-Entity Boundary Line” defined in 1995 by Dayton accords after Bosnian War.
Distribution of Orthodox Bosnian Serbs (in red), Catholic Bosnian Croats (blue) and Muslim Bosnian Bosniaks (green) in Bosnia in 1991. The white lines represents the “Inter-Entity Boundary Line” defined in 1995 by Dayton accords after Bosnian War.
So Republika Srpska — like Federation of BiH — is not a natural country, is not a real and contiguous country and is not a homeland since many people are living in recently-ethnically-cleansed areas (like eastern Bosnia, close to Serbian border). Nobody in History prior to 1992 ever heard about a place called “Srpska” in Bosnia, and by Dayton accords R.S. is just an entity that looks like a country, but in fact it is not.--MaGioZal 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Well, Brazil exists since 1500"

If something exist, who care if it exist from 1500 or from 2006. That is completelly ridiculous argument for anything. Regarding your claim that "Republika Srpska was created basically due to ethnic cleansing", tell me which country was created different than that. Even "your Brasil" was created due to ethnic cleansing of native Americans. And what you want to tell me? That ethnic cleansing that happened in 1500 is not important at all any more? The only difference that I see between Brasil and Republika Srpska is this: even before Bosnian war Serbs were majority in Republika Srpska (about 60%) and during the war Serbs only increased their majority from 60% to 90%, while in Brasil, the Brasilians were not majority there before they ethnically cleansed native Americans. And what the hell is the point of the claim that "Republika Srpska is not a natural country"??? Which country is natural according to you? And how can one country be natural at all when it was created by humans??? Only natural things are natural, human-made things are not. And RS is a homeland of the Serb people that live there (go there and ask them). PANONIAN (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And, one more question, mister Double Standards, since before Bosnian war Serbs made up 60% of population of modern Republika Srpska is that mean that they do not have right to rule over themselves in the territory in which they were majority? PANONIAN (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, this is not a rational reason for what happened. The relatively slim (60%) majority didn’t give authomatic right for pro-Greater Serbian forces to rape and to kill innocent civillians whose only sin were not having the same religion of this 60% majority.
War events have nothing to do with right of people to choose in which country they will live. Even if there was not war at all we would still had this 60% Serb majority and their right to have territorial autonomy. PANONIAN (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Bosnian Genocide which Serbian ultranationalists call “war events” have all to do with the “right” to separatism. That’s the reason why most of the International community thinks Kosovo deserves independence, but Srpska does not. Look at the map again: before the Bosnian War, although the “Bosnian Serbs” were in majority, there’s no territorial continuity: the area looks like more a swiss cheese or checkerboard rather than a Serbian continuous territory. And although Serbs were a majority in the so-called “Srpska”, they were (and are) a minority (around 37%) inside Bosnia. And Republika Srpska now occupies 49% of the territory.
All wrong, mister Double Standards, human rights are universal category and have nothing to do with any war. People that live in any part of the World have right to be free and to rule over themselves. And let talk about your country a little: since Brazilians commited genocide against native Americans does it mean that Brazil should be abolished and that all Brazilians should go back to Portugal? Also, why you mentioning those pro-fascist pro-Nazi theories about "natural countries", "historical rights", "territorial continuity", etc? My thought was that such theories died with Adolph Hitler, so why would we discuss them? Regarding Srpska, before the Bosnian war, ethnic Serbs were in possession of about 60% of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska today have only 49%, so Serbs lost land in this case. Second thing, Serbs also were majority in whole Bosnia-Herzegovina before 1971, thus your other argument is totally false too. PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow… so the UN, the EU and NATO are all Neo-Fascists? That’s a very Seseljoid declaration.--MaGioZal 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
About Brazil… well, we had many problems during our history (and still have many today), but I say that during Brazil’s History many Indians and Blacks were killed or enslaved by the Portuguese, many wars happened, but nowadays the important fact is that Brazil recognize its History and assumes its errors. Brazil is proud of its multi-racial mix, and there’s no hagiographic heroes in the country (even former Emperors and Presidents can be mocked on TV or comic books), and this is very good. People can talk about and discuss History freely, as it happens in normal democracies. And today, there’s no confusion betteen ethnicity and religion here. Sorry, but for me the “entities” of Bosnia are as “natural homelands” as were former Bantustans in South Africa.--MaGioZal 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"Brazil recognize its History and assumes its errors"
Does this recognition of its history means that Brazil will abolish itself because of that recognition?
No, becuse differently from Republika Srpska, the History of Brazil is much more bigger, vast and complex, and the reason of existence country is not the sole creation of genocide — many other things happened. And nowadays the all the people of Brazil that has been born here are full Brazilians, doesn’t matter if a person is Portuguese Brazilian, African Brazilian, Brazilian Indian, German Brazilian, Italian Brazilian, Spanish Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, and so on. There’s no “nationalities” in the Brazilian Constitution; as the same way as the USA, every person born here and lives here is a full citizen. There’s no talk like making distinctions between “Serbians and Serbs”, nor slogans chanted in soccer stadiums or painted on the walls like “Serbia for the Serbs”, “Orthodoxy or Death” and things alike.
There is simply no single difference between Brazil and Srpska in this case. According to your logic we should also abolish Nunavut because it have no long history, right? By the way the existence of Srpska have nothing to do with genocide, it was in fact created to protect Serbs from genocide. And if you see the map from 1991 you may notice how many Serbs lived in BIH Federation and Croatia. Where are they now? I will tell you where they are: they live as refugees in Serbia and Srpska. And to conclude: there was a war, and those individuals guilty for war crimes were charged and convicted for that. That has nothing to do with ordinary people who live in Srpska. They are just people like you and they deserve to live free and safe as much as you do. Those people were victims of the war and it is shame to accuse victims for crimes. Just stick to your own bussiness (find something to fuck perhaps) and let people to live their lives in peace, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
First, Inuits from Nunavut are much more different in language and culture from European Canadians than Serbs in relation to Bosniaks and Croats (there’s no need for example from translations of papers between these “languages” in places like ICTY or Radio Free Europe — all is written in plain old Serbo-Croatian language). Second, Inuits never sieged Ottawa to kill civillians to spread terror and achieve independence from Canada. Besides, Canada is a full Western developed democratic country, so people there usually take more civilized and peaceful means to achieve their goals.--MaGioZal 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If Brazil will not abolish itself because of this, why you ask that Republika Srpska abolish itself?
The interesting fact is that politicians in R.S. (which prefere to build giant churches than to help the unemployed people) call for abolition of the republic… to join it with Serbia.
What politicians? Never heard for it... PANONIAN (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever heard about a guy called Radovan Karadzic?--MaGioZal 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And there is also no confusion between ethnicity and religion in Bosnia too, so what is your problem really?
Well, any Orthodox church has never been destroyed on Croatian-and-Bosniak-held Bosnia, but on the territories controlled by the infamous Army of Republika Srpska, the Muslims and people with “Muslim names” were massacred or expelled, and many, many mosques, many of them with more than 400 years of age, were demolished (like the Banja Luka’s 1579 Ferhadija mosque, which wasn’t reconstructed yet):
UNESCO-protected Ferhadija mosque, destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces in 1993
UNESCO-protected Ferhadija mosque, destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces in 1993
You have no idea what you saying. Many Orthodox churches were destroyed too, it is just something that your one-sided brain cannot accept. And ethnic Serbs were expelled and massacred too, it is just that you do not care for it, mister Double Standards. PANONIAN (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Where? As far as I know, no Orthodox church was ever demolished in FBiH-held territory during Bosnian War. And there was no Srebrenica (where 8.000 men and boys were massacred) in relation to Bosnian Serbs. In Bosnian War, the most killed people were the Bosnian Muslims. And if this affirmation is “Neo-Fascism”, “Serbophobia” or whatever you call, the United Nations and recognized organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International share Neo-Fascist and Serbophobic ideology, too.--MaGioZal 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You probably read some book with anti-Serb propaganda and now you think that you know everything. How nice... PANONIAN (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is not just an position of “some book with anti-Serb propaganda”. It’s the opinion of pratically all media of the Western World (try Google News). Well, maybe you think the Western World and Western Culture are Serbophobic, but well, that’s your problem.
The fact is that the politicians that rules Republika Srpska have now no powers to decide on its separation from Bosnia. Their powers are being gradually curtailed by the UN High Representative, and above him the EU and mainly NATO has all the sufficient resources to stop any separatist adventure (remember the end the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia). The only way to Srpska separate from Bosnia to join Serbia and to stop the process of independence of Kosovo is the pro-ultranationalist-Serbs pick up their guns and to declare war again — but the possibilities of losing the battle for NATO soldiers, aviation, bombs and bullets are almost total. Other alternative would be some kind of a giant international superpower dispute, like Russia threatening the United States with nuclear missiles if they don’t stop to support an unified Bosnia and an independent Kosovo. But this is very, very unlikely to happen.
By now, it seems like the Greater Serbian dream/nightmare will be on the same place of Confederate States of America and Großdeutsches Reich: the trashbin of History. Goodbye.--MaGioZal 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You really know nothing about "western World" and its involvement in wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. It was "western World" that officially recognized Srpska, it was "western World" that stopped Bosniak-Croat army to conquer Banja Luka in 1995, it was "western World" that used munition with uranium in areas mostly populated by Kosovar Albanians and Bosniaks (just imagine why). So, no, I do not think that "western World" is Serbophobic. On the contrary, I think that "western World" is in fact Islamophobic and the only reason why "western World" kept Serbs in Bosnia is because "western World" think that Serbs will prevent islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia. And yes, the politicians that rules Republika Srpska have now no powers to decide on its separation from Bosnia, but they will have these powers soon because your beloved UN High Representative will transfer that power to them as soon as next year. PANONIAN (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Mmmmmmm… I don’t think so.--MaGioZal 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop trolling. Others: don't fall into troll bad faith cicle of discussion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

MaGioZal seems to be far to emotionally involved with Serbs to be "just a normal Westerner". --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] renaming article "anti-Serbian sentiment" or similar

Since "Serbophobia" appears to be a rather uncommon word as such I suggest renaming the article to something along the lines of "Anti-Serbian sentiment" (with the appropriate redirects, including Serbophobia, of course). Pretending that there is a commonly used word in teh English language called "Serbophobia" is, to me, a bit silly. Wikipedia shouldn't be about inventing words.Osli73 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Most of the external articles citing “Serbophobia” (including the ones in the “External links” section) are or in Serbo-Croatian or in Serbian/South Slavic sites written in English. Serbophobia in sites out of this two conditions are somehow rare. May the titles “Anti-Serbian sentiment” or “Anti-Serbism” could be more pertinent, since there’s no “Croatophobia”(note: there is a redirect to the article Anti-Croatian sentiment), “Bosniakphobia” (note: there is a redirect to the article Anti-Bosniak sentiment), “Montenegrinphobia”, “Kosovarphobia”, “Macedoniaphobia” or “Sloveniophobia” or something like that here in Wikipedia.--MaGioZal 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one else has any comments by the end of the weekend, maybe we should go ahead and change i`t?Osli73 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--MaGioZal 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the discussion on the recent AfD it seems that the consensus among editors was that Serbophobia was a well established term outside of Wikipedia. The article itself cites usage before WWI as well. // Laughing Man 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really neutral on this, but both of the terms should be in the heading part. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POVed and unsourced

For me almost the entire article is quite problematic in terms of POV, mainly in the section “Forms and examples of alleged Serbophobia” and “An overview of anti-Serbian sentiment in history”. And through all the article the problem of sourcing is present too, since many statements are unsourced or when they’re sourced, many of the sources are from staunch Serb-nationalist sites. I’ve tried o put the “POV” and the “Disputed” warnings at the top of the page, but every time I did this, pro-Serb-nationalist editors removed the warnings after some minutes.--MaGioZal 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

pro-Serb-nationalist editors, aggain accusing - this is a collective personal attack, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sourcing needs uncited tag and there are those. as far as examples of serbophobia is concerned, this is an article about that, isn't it? in other nation's anti/phobias, similar relevant examples can be put, and not examples of serbophobia.Lakinekaki 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section: "Forms and examples of alleged Serbophobia" needs cited sources

This section needs cited sources for each example - otherwise it looks like original research. Each verifiable reliable source needs to contain the allegation of Serbophobia. SmithBlue 07:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC) SmithBlue 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I of course agree, but you deleted some examples which were cited - for example the NYT article, and a few examples in Vojvodina section. Nikola 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is needed in a citation is the exact source for the info - Title of article, writer, publication, date, page number for a newspaper for example. More on what is required for a citation is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Basically a reader of the encyclopedia needs to be able to go to a library or on the web and check any citation. As far as I could see what I deleted didnt have full citations. If I was mistaken please show me. If you get citations for the deleted info please replace it, with the citations, or point it out to me and I'll cite it. SmithBlue 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the problem here?

Every group feels discriminated against, even the rich see being stolen from and being forced to pay lots of tax and having to follow the same law as poor people as forms of discrimination. And then every other group I can think of IS discriminated against by some group. What I would like to see here is a fully referenced article that clearly documents the subject at hand. SmithBlue 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniakophobia

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia. Bosniak 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a great example of Serbophobia. - King Ivan 07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Ivan can plainly say on his user page that he admires Ante Gotovina because he is defender of Croatia's independence from bloodthirsty Serbs and that nobody who is not a Serb would even perceive it as a problem is an even better example. Nikola 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content of this article important?

Is having relevant descriptive sourced content in this article important to any of the editors here? If so; there is work to be done. This article can not focus mainly on acts against Serbians - only when notable sources claim the action was evoked or made easier by anti-Serb feeling can they be considered for inclusion in a section like "Examples of actions perceived as anti-Serb." And then just enough examples to show the range are necessary. See Antisemitism for an example.

The meanings, origins, history of the term seem well covered. Present unique features of Serbophobia. Surely more notable people have written discrimantory material about "the Serbs"? This is the stuff that needs to go into this article (again see Antisemitism). Please source more material explicitly describing the long term efffects of Serbophobia on Serbs and the discriminators.

A section about the actions that Serbophobia has evoked or made easier would give some examples of Serbophobic actions where this material meets a very heavy demand of proof that the action was inspired or mader easier by Serbophobia. An accusation that Serbophobia was the cause is not enough for this section - a verifiable reputable sourced self-proclamation, or similar, by the perpetrator would be necessary. Something like, "We ..., cause they were Serbs" SmithBlue 00:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, there is the study on The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija which polled Serbs who left Kosovo in 70s and 80s on their reasons. What do you think about it? Nikola 17:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nicola, is the website reputable? If yes, then the material in the report could be quoted here, (with references). The reasons why Serbs left Kosovo could go in a section about Serbian perception of discrimination/etc and Serbian responses. SmithBlue 09:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Rest assured that Project Rastko is a reliable website, and that the study on the site is equal to the one actually printed. The question is, of course, if Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is reputable... Nikola 14:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NYT article and another article claiming, "Its discrimination" needed

For the NYT article to be included we'd like the cite for the article and then we definately need a cited (reputable, verifiable) source describing the NYT article as anti-Serb. That you and I think the article's title is anti-Serb does not count for the encyclopedia. So (? most) points raised in the article need a (reputable, verifiable, notable) source that states, something like, "Such and such is anti-Serb discrimination" or "Serbs have these very negative qualities: ...." or, "We treated them very badly and ..., because they were Serbs." If you have any statements/questions about this requirement lets discuss them. SmithBlue 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be deleted - it is well documented
In this particular case, I believe I can find a reference, for example [8] describes the title as "anti-Serbian". But I think you are setting the bar a bit too high - don't you think that a song like "Hang Serbs on willows" or desacration of Serbian cemmeteries is an anti-Serb act even if we can't find anyone who explicitly describes it so? Nikola 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If we have cites for whats included there is one less criticism that can be made about this article. And yes "Hang Serbs on willows" is clearly discrimination - as long as we can show its being sung by another group. My guess is that there is quite enough material for this article with cites that we dont need uncited material. Have googled for another source critical of NYT headline - can we use mainstream Serb newspapers here? And can you get such a citation? Am uncertain of reliability of IAC. “Milosevic is accused, but all of Serbia is on trial” is, to me, clearly anti-Serb but others might say "not" - why give them any opening when with a cite we put the matter beyond question? SmithBlue 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I can't find yet another reference about the NYT article, though I believe that the one I found already is good enough. Regarding "Hang Serbs on willows", references of the song being sung or evoked are very easy to find. Nikola 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if it is (NYT - IAC cite) good enough - accusing groups with communist ties of bias is often quite succesful even if not true - if someone can find a bullet-proof cite that would be good. In section;"An overview of anti-Serbian sentiment in history" has any one got references for; "After the war, there were significant ethnic tensions in the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1945), which was dominated by the Serbian nation." ? SmithBlue 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POv problems

People keep bringing up "POV problems" in every AfD, so tell us what they are so that we can fix them.--Еstavisti 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For me the name of this article may be a problem. Anti-Serb discrimination seems a better description, with clear examples cited already. "Serbophobia" while having overlap with "anti-Serb discrimination" also seems to be presented by some as Serbian establishment propaganda. Claiming discrimination and hatred by the the enemy is very common - just in this case the word perhaps used for propaganda is fairly uncommon in English still. An article named anti-Serb discrimination or something along those line would include a section on "Serbophobia" and its history and uses. SmithBlue 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As the List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms shows, some terms are constructed with phobia, some with anti. Phobia implies fear, anti implies opposition. For known and unknown reasons, different nations' sentiments have different word compositions. In case of Serbs, my personal experience tells me that phobia is more appropriate. In case of Jews, anti is more appropriate. Lakinekaki 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's just language. Jewophobia isn't a word, and Anti-Semitism is. Serbophobia is a word, and Anti-Serbianism isn't. The end.--Еstavisti 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"It's just language" may be part of it - "anti-Serbism" sounds like a serious sensible English word to my ears. "Serbophobia", hmmm ..., to my ear sounds a bit too much like a fear of surfers, kitchen sponges, mops or pimples. Which is not to deny the seriousness of the construct. And its not to say that we should change the title because of this - just that to some native English speakers the word sound is "not constructed in the normal manner" for an English word. SmithBlue 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion requests?

What is the point of so many deletion requests. 2 positive and 2 neutral decisions; hopefully editors will stop proposing this article for deletion as it obviously has no effect. Even if it by chance gets deleted, surely there are enough editors that will ask for un-deletion of the article. Lakinekaki 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Could editors specify which wikipedia policy is not meet by this article? Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Lakinekaki 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who uses "Serbophobia"/"anti-Serbism"?

The introduction paragraph states, "Serbophobia ..., also called anti-Serbism, is a term or political accusation sometimes used by Serbian nationalists..." Why does this article limit use of these terms to Serb nationalists? According to 1st paragraph no-one else uses it. SmithBlue 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grounds for Serbophobia

Could we include these reasons as to why some people dislike serbs in the modern era.... Something about the kosovan war or the bosnian war. The Srebrenica massacre? Why does serbophobia exist? I see nothing in this article to suggest as to the reasons it exists as of yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.7.94 (talk • contribs) 03:31, January 11, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pro-Serbian ultranationalist bias of this article needs change!

Promotion of nationalism and ethnic cleansing ideals should not be the policy of Wikipedia!

The term serbophobia is an equivalent to the Nazi propaganda before and during WWII. The Nazis claimed that the whole world is conspired against the Germans anything German. Serbian ultranationalists similarly claim that Serbs are being persecuted and conspired against by everyone around them....which is complete non-sense. This term has been used as propaganda to help shape public opinion for attacks against Croatia and Bosnia in the early 1990s as well as for the genocide against Kosovar Albanians.

I wander how long this type of biased propaganda article would be kept up on Wikipedia, if it for example refered to the "victimization of Germans" before the WWII and trying to shift the blame for historic events on victims such as the Jews? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lusich (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The use of this word is not widespread in either Serbian or English languages. It's more objective, more fair, and more accurate to define it as Anti-Serb Sentiment. Both Serbophobia and Bosniakophobia were politicized (invented) words that are not widely used in any language and should not be used in wikipedia, I agree. Bosniak 08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong, the word is used both in Serbian and English. Unlike Bosniakophobia, a word which no one uses. Nikola 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Serbophobia

The use of this word is not widespread in either Serbian or English languages. It's more objective, more fair, and more accurate to define it as Anti-Serb Sentiment. Both Serbophobia and Bosniakophobia were politicized (invented) words that are not widely used in any language and should not be used in wikipedia, I agree. Bosniak 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But 1) please use WP:RM rather than acting unilaterally and 2) With your edits and move, much of the text doesn't make sense, e.g. "the term is used by Krleza". Duja► 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect, and you have been informed of this before. The term "Serbophobia" is used, for example, in academic literature; a Google Scholar search for the term yields 24 papers (as compared with only 10 for "anti-Serb sentiment" and none for "Bosniakophobia"). —Psychonaut 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting question.

Is this serbophobia or something else: In Earth album ([9]) provided with the courtesy of Google maps and Flickr, Serbia and Montenegro are for some reason missing.

Note that I could not find any other European country missing, nor any randomly chosen world country missing. I could find even countries as small as Andora and Vatican. Note also that there is a name Serbia in the Google map, as well as pictures from Serbia in Flickr, but combined code excludes it. Comments?...Lakinekaki 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried e-mailing the Earth Album and pointing the mistake out of them, instead of reaching your own conclusions that it was an instance of Serbophobia? This is an encyclopedia, y'know. Duja► 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'know! I just noticed the same thing in some travel guides several years ago, when all countries around serbia had descriptions while serbia was blanked on the map and had no description in the guide! Thanks for suggestion, I will contact Earth Album, and also one other organization (that may do some original research on the topic which I may be able to quote ;o) Lakinekaki 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “…or Republika Srpska.”

Where’s the sources to this affirmation at the first paragraph? (okay, I promised myself not to touch this strange article anymore, but…)-- MaGioZal

[edit] False link!

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyorders/ibhy_iorder_19971217.html

This is a false link Bosnia has never been convicted 4 genocide! Delete this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Thug (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Albanophobia

Article on Albanophobia states that Albanophobia is widespread in Serbia[1] [2], Greece[3] and FYROM[4]. I can find references of similar quality in regard to spread of serbophobia, should this be in the article? Nikola 11:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to misquote them as well. The English language sources which purportedly affirm that Albanophobia is "widespread" in Greece and FYROM say nothing of the sort (I can't read the Serbian ones).--Domitius 13:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/Talk%7ESerbophobia_bbf8.html"