Talk:Serbian cross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Serbian cross is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
This is a very nationalist symbol in Serbia. It is used by extreme right groups, and it is quite offending for everyone not 100% Serbian. Some people consider it similar to the Hooked Cross. I think a note should be added, but I'm not familiar with NPOV stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.221.49 (talk • contribs)
That's complete rubbish. That's like saying the cross of St. George is offensive, or the Sahovnica, or any other "national symbol". --estavisti 23:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Made changes to the article. Now it's less emotive and more informative.
Estavisti, I don't like it when people offend national symbols, using words like "nationalist" as a degrading term for them. That's what made me change this article.
Sure, nationalist parties and groups of varying degrees of moderation or extremism will use national symbols for their groups. They may use such symbols to be considered more "patriotic" by supporters and/or possible voters. That doesn't make the nationalists necessarily any worse or better, and it certainly shouldn't make the national symbols look bad.
Alan. --81.79.172.224 23:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Alan, I can only assume you're referring to the unsigned comment I myself was replying to. --estavisti 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] spray painted image
Not sure why some editors want to add the spray painted image of the cross? To me it seems inappropriate and encyclopedic as it gives a negative connotation for the cross as a street sign was (illegally) vandalized. // Laughing Man 14:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- vandals vandalize stuff regardless of their nationality so this doesn't strike me as a a bid deal. The thing is a a depiction of the Cross spray painted on a road sign doesn't seem very relevent. I'd propose some more traditional image.
- I apologise if I've caused any offence by putting up the photo. My intention was to show somewhere that I found the cross. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Serbs were all vandals or anything like that. Now that I think about it, the photo's sort of out of place (aesthetically) in the article anyway. Sorry. —DO'Neil 06:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm certain DO'Neil didn't mean anything wrong. I agree that vandalised sign has no place in the article though I think that another grafitti might have. Nikola 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise if I've caused any offence by putting up the photo. My intention was to show somewhere that I found the cross. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Serbs were all vandals or anything like that. Now that I think about it, the photo's sort of out of place (aesthetically) in the article anyway. Sorry. —DO'Neil 06:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
++ Byzantine Cross ++ I have included this theory. I think it is best documented and quite reasonable.. I hope you will not be too prompt with deleating it :) Best regards. Nikola Dragovic
