Talk:Serbian nationalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] original research
Please do not remove the {{originalresearch}} and {{disputed}} until you can provide some references for the article. // Laughing Man 01:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- But I’ve already provided them.--MaGioZal 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- 99% of the article is unsourced. I suggest you review WP:NOR as it clearly explains the policy here, and without sources, this article appears to be just that -- original research. // Laughing Man 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- But the text of the article can be refered by the other links already present in the article. I think there’s no necessity to put a gazillion of references if they are already present in the articles linked.--MaGioZal 01:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- And, let’s check the policies:
-
-
-
- *It introduces a theory or method of solution;
- *It introduces original ideas;
- *It defines new terms;
- *It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
- *It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
- *It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
- *It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
-
-
-
-
- It's not about what you think, you must provide sources. I think Jimmy said it very well, and hopefully you can understand from his explanation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history."
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Also please spare me of your conspirarcy theories and just fix the problems with the article. // Laughing Man 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You are bringings things related to other article talk that for now doesn’t relate to the talk here. And I’ve used the term “Serbian Guard Cabal” not as an affirmation or accusation; that was just a term I’ve used to express my feeling on that context — I used “this kind of ‘Serb Guard Cabal’”, not “Serb Guard Cabal”. It’s a different thing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And reading Jimbo’s excerpt you’ve posted above, I really can’t see where this article infringes so much the “no original research law” as you are stating.--MaGioZal 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let's put it simply as possible -- just source the article. Thank you. // Laughing Man 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- And reading Jimbo’s excerpt you’ve posted above, I really can’t see where this article infringes so much the “no original research law” as you are stating.--MaGioZal 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I would just like to say a couple of things here. I find this article ridiculous in its claim to be some sort of a compendium of Serbian nationalism starting from like the 9th century up to today. The author, whoever he/she is, is putting together arbitrarily some people and groups of people, their wishes and aspirations from such diverse periods of both history and social and cultural development in a way which is not possible in this manner, in my opinion. I, for that matter can't even perceive of a way that someone can talk about nationalism before, at earliest, the first nation state was formed. To say that this "is an old phenomenon between the Slavic, generally Orthodox, Shtokavian-speaking peoples of the Balkans — denominated Serbs, beginning to appear in the Middle Ages" is to say the least an extreme exaggeration. If a member of a tribe that collects berries all day trying to feed his family which has been converted from paganism to christianity about a century or two ago can be said to have been a Serb nationalist, I rest my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.218.40.40 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
[edit] other comments
I am trying to understand the origins of Serbian Nationalism in my study of World War I, since the phenomenon happens to play a pretty major role in getting the war started. It also plays a pretty big role in post-World-War-II European politics and bloodshed. And if you haven't noticed, bloodshed in post-WWII Europe is pretty rare. So what I would like to find out is how an actual Serbian Nationalist views his/her origins. To what group of people or ancient personage does a Serbian Nationalist trace his/her roots? Who is the Great Serb, the memory of whom is worth the sacrifice of so much slaughtered human flesh?--71.206.185.209 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"The Great Serb" is actually used to sell Ustashe-O's, a rabidly anti-Croatian cereal. The box has a smiling Stephen Dushan riding a marshmallow horse toward a cereal bowl shaped like Constantinople while the ragged Ragusans wave their fists from the blighted hills of Dalmatia. Seriously, though....you're not writing a report. You're writing a trolling plee for attention. WWI was an inevitable consequences of a lack of understanding or forethought among the great powers concerning their military alliances and new military technology. If anything, German Nationalism is to blame, in that Serbia made several concessions to Austria-Hungary which were rejected because the Prussians were spoiling for a fight which they thought they would win quickly. In fact, German Nationalism is also the clear cause of WWII, isn't it? And yet "German Nationalism" sensibly re-directs to "Nationalism" (a well researched page with sources) to avoid demonizing a country for its pasts. This page should do the same, unless anyone can claim with a straight face that Serbian Nationalism is more signifigant to the history of the twentieth century than German nationalism. This page, like its fellow one-sided abortion "Croatian Nationalism" should be deleted, unless someone can 1)justify their existence and 2)make them anything but an unreadable set of accusations, excuses, and counter accusations.
I just had to add something about Blaško Temunović- the info is untrue since police issued a report stating he was attacked by his ex-girlfriends friends because he was abusing her and sending treatening text messages via mobile phone. There are now numerous sources for this and its clear he tried to use the attack to raise his political rating. Stating he was attacked by Serbs is jumping to conclusions even before police investigation ended. Most important is both of the attackers have been caught and are not Serbs but Bunjevac/Hungarian. Info is therefore untrue and should be removed.
[edit] Some of web resources on Serbian nationalism
Refrences on Serbian nationalism
- United States Institute of Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.49 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Narodna Odbrana.jpg
Image:Narodna Odbrana.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This is Anti-Serb PROPAGANDA article
This article contains so many false and incorrect anti-Serb statements.Just for example:Serbian Orthodox Church antisemit organisation ???!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damjanoviczarko (talk • contribs) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)