Talk:Serbophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents


[edit] Introduction text

Hi, there's been some mild edit warring on the text to be used in the intro. Since the intro is all most people end up reading, the wording is important. I have a couple of issues with the current (the more extensive one, that is) which I think would need to be improved/changed:

  1. calling a term "invented" is wrong since we don't know who 'invented' it or when. It is also slightly POV since it implies that it is an artificial word. I think it would be better to say that the word "became increasingly popular" or something like that.
  2. I'm not too keen on the generalized characterization of the term. Imagine writing that "anti-Semitism" is "invented" and used as a prism through which to judge all negative events for Jews and used to justify aggressive Israeli policies! Basically, what I'm getting at here is that the current description implies that Serbophobia is just a made up word used for victimization. This may be true, or not, but the intro should be as neutral as possible and refrain from characterizing the word. This is better done in the history subsection.
  3. The intro only uses one source, which isn't ideal.

Instead, I propose the following text:

Serbophobia is a term used to describe a sentiment of hostility or hatred towards Serbs or Serbia. The term was popularized by the the so-called Memorandum published by the Serbian Academy of Science in xxx.

The rest could be put in the history section. Finally, I think the article should focus on the term Serbophobia rather than (alleged) expressions of it. If that is possible / makes sense. CheersOsli73 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, some sources which could be used are. Please add your own. CheersOsli73 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Victim Chic? The Rhetoric of victimhood, by Michael Ovey, Cambridge Papers, Volume 15 no 1, March 2006 [1]
  2. Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis, chapter on The Role of Serbian Ressentiment, by Vesna Pesic, United States Institute of Peace, April 1996 | Peaceworks No. 8 [2]
  3. Letter to the editor by William Dorich, published in Published in The American Srbobran, May 17 1999 [3][4]
  4. Speech by William Dorich before members of the House of Representatives, April 1 2000, available on Center for Peace in the Balkans website[5]
Good point with 'popularised' vs. 'invented'. The term was not invented, but the meaning was invented and the term popularised. The intro uses two sources, which isn't ideal, but on the other hand every sentence is sourced. Serbophobia is nothing like anti-Semitism, so this is not a good analogy. - Francis Tyers · 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Francis, I'm not suggesting Serbophobia is like anti-Semitism, I was simply trying to illustrate that it doesn't feel entirely NPOV to present it as a cover for nationalism and Milosevic-style policies. I realize that it's a thoroughly politicized term, but that doesn't mean that the article introduction should trash it. Again, I think it would be better to say what it means and that it was popularized by so and so and then, if necessary, go on to describe the role/purpose which some academics (?) feel that the term has come to be used in/for. See my point? Otherwise, it feels as if the article is going to be an edit war battle ground forever. In the end, it might be anyway, but, let's at least do our best to produce as NPOV an article as possible to reduce it to a minimum. CheersOsli73 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is used as a cover for nationalism. The term is not used for the meaning outside the circle of nationalist Serbs and their sympathisers. We do not write articles from the point-of-view of the people who subscribe to them. - Francis Tyers · 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The article survived the AfD because it was radically changed (by me). If it stops being radically changed, it should be AfD'd again. I will not AfD it in its current state, but I would welcome someone else doing so. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That the term is used as a cover for nationalism is an opinion of some people. There are other people who don't think so, first of all, most of those who use the term. Perhaps in this article we could describe points of view of both. We could call that, say, neutral point of view! Nikola 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Francis, some comments:

  1. I voted for this article (as well as all the other anti-x articles mentioned) to be deleted in the recent AfD process. Given that Serbophobia is more of a word than an established concept and all of the nationalist mud-slinging going on in Balkan-related articles I felt we should delete it.
  2. I'm not sure why it survived. I'd support another try though I'm not sure it's worth it given that the last one was concluded so recently.
  3. However, I don't think the recent AfD vote is a valid reason for stopping editing the article.
  4. I realize you and I probably have different ideas about what the article should say and how it should be structured. However, I think that if we can agree on some general principles it shouldn't be so difficult.
  5. I agree that in some cases the term is used as a cover for nationalism. However, others obviously don't think so. My point is that it's not for us to make that judgement (see WP:OR). Instead, we should reflect what others say and if it's controversial try to portray both sides (see WP:NPOV)
  6. So, I think we shouldn't generally characterize the term in the intro but rather in a subsection where we say that "During the conflicts in former Yugoslavia the term has been used by some to describe a perceived automatic bias against Serbs and Serbia by many Western commentators and politicians... On the other hand, some, primarily Western, commentators believe that the term has come to be used as...". That should be fairly NPOV in my mind.

Happy MidsummerOsli73 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion, or else I'd join it earlier.

About the intro, there is one thing which really can't be there, and that is claiming that serbophobia is somehow "invented" or popularised or whatever. Serbophobia is hatred toward Serbs. The end. Whether someone sometimes claimed that the hatred existed when it in fact didn't, is completely orthogonal to this. Even if nobody in the world ever hated Serbs, serbophobia still remains (a theoretical concept of) hatred towards Serbs. Opinions that serbophobia doesn't in fact exist were in Criticism section, and I don't see why wouldn't they stay there.

I also don't understand why is Francis deleting huge parts of the (relatively small) article. Why deleting use of term by Krleza, instances of Serbophobia, Bennet's criticism, or use in various languages? All of it is sourced and relevant.

Finally, I'd like to say that I have managed to obtain that book "Serbophobia and its sources". And, I could use it to expand the article (one of the points stated in the VfD was that the article wasn't improved). But, frankly, I am afraid of the possible consequences so I am not sure if I should do it. Nikola 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello all, it's becoming quite clear that the core of the matter seems to be whether Serbophobia is a "cover for nationalism" (you get the drift) or not. My very strong view on this is that this is an obvious Point of View and should be expressed as such. It is not for the editors of the article to make our own judgement on this. However, I have no problem with the article saying that certain people see it as a cover for nationalism etc. and then give examples of their comments. Your comments are welcome (rather than edit wars). CheersOsli73 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that serbophobia can not be a cover for nationalism. Serbophobia can be used as a cover for nationalism, but that is another thing entirely. Nikola 07:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Nikola, my point exactly. The article should just say that Serbophobia means xxx and then, maybe, go on to say how different people have interpreted it. Surely, that must be the most NPOV way of presenting the issue. However, I would still prefer if the article was deleted alltogether. However, if that's not happening, then at least the article should be NPOV and not pretend as if Serbophobia is more of an established term than it actually is (which is not very much). Cheers Osli73 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear all, as I've written before, I'd prefer to delete this article and would be glad to vote for a delete in a renewed AfD process. However, in the meantime, I think the article should at least not be POV. Here's a suggestion of for a text (posted in reply to Francis' suggestion on my talk page):

Serbophobia refers to a fear, hatred or jealousy of Serbs or Serbia. Hatred toward Serbs is a dominant theme in the writings of many Serbian intellectuals. This theme in Serbian ressentiment contends that in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) the Serbian republic had to endure "the unequal and humiliating position of the Serbian people in the present-day Yugoslavia under the rule of an anti-Serb coalition, especially of `Serbophobia,' which in the last decades has grabbed wide layers of Slovenian, Croatian, Albanian peoples, and some parts of the Macedonian intelligentsia and Moslems. . . . The Albanian national minority for longer than two decades from its motherland hounds the most populous Yugoslav people." The Serbian nation is "surrounded by hatred, which made its peace more tormenting than the war." The Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts also contributed by organizing a conference on the Croatian war memorial at Jasenovac, once more heating up the unavoidable theme of the Croatian genocide of the Serbs; an accompanying tract accused Croatia of assimilating Serbs living in the republic. The Serbian Writers Association also organized a meeting in 1989 with the theme of "Serbophobia," where Croatian genocide was once again featured prominently.[6] During the 1990s the term has also come to be applied to 'Western' criticism of Serbia's role in the conflict the former Yugoslavia.[7] According to some commentators, the belief in Serbophobia is an ingridient in Serbian victimization and nationalism.[8]

The references would have to be fixed up, but, how about it? CheersOsli73 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is better than the misleading lead, but is also wrong. For one, serbophobia is not a dominant theme in the writings of many Serbian intellectuals. Nikola 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Osli, I have to agree with Nikola regarding the lead, and although I really appriciate the effort, I feel it still needs some work as it is misleading, is loaded with weasel words, and implies that the term is "invented" by someone. // laughing man 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Laughing Man and Nikola, upon readng the intro I wrote again, I guess I agree with your comments since. I was trying to strike a balance between the differing versions.Cheers Osli73 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is neologism, and it was deleted few times already!

Please delete this neologism. Why was Serpophobia restored? Let's delete all of these neologisms and focus on real articles. Let's stop politics. We need to put a stop to this crap (as you called it), and move forward! Who is FOR and who is AGAINST? Bosniak 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mu. Who wants to discuss this matter calmly and rationally instead of excitedly offering up false dichotomies? —Psychonaut 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Pls look at the suggestions above. CheersOsli73 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Look if Lusophobia has an article why sebophobia should not have one.Lord feanor 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Versions

I know that there will be users which will not agree with me but version of User:Francis Tyers is better of today version. This version is not having even POV tag ?? If we look article Anti-Americanism we will see that many words are used about question why, what is source of this feeling ? In this version of article nothing is writen about that !! I will need to change that in near future.. Examples of this change are: "First known instance of Serbophobia has been born after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria has been killed by Serbian terrorist organization. After creation of Yugoslavia Serbophobia feelings will raise between Croats because of king Alexander terror ..." Like in others articles in this all my statement will be confirmed by internet sources so they will be out of suspicion." CheersRjecina 2:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple speaking today version of this article is not neutral or honest. Rjecina 4:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
King Alexander did not terrorize. He abolished all the political parties and proclaimed himself the only head of the state but he did not terrorize Croats. --George D. Božović 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Let as be clear. In my thinking Croats and Serbs are 1 nation separated by church. Only chance for Yugoslavia has been abolishing of church and creating 1 Yugoslav nation so king Alexander thinking has been OK. Now when this is clear few words about Alexander and terror on Croats. Source for that are this [9] [10]
In the end if we will be honest there is no need for sources. 1 Croatian leader has been killed shortly before Alexander has taken power and his successor has finished in prison. There is no need to say anything other. Rjecina 6:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Todays version is incorect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Court of Justice, iBHY 17 December 1997, material

On closer reading of the cite I now see that this material consists of claims put forward by Serbia but later ruled inadmissable to the proceedingsby the court. If the claims are to be included here they will need to be expressed in very diffrerent ways. The claims were not recognised as truthful (or untruthful) by the court - the court rather said that the court could not consider them. If other sources can be found ... At present this material can be best expressed as claims by Serbia, not a finding of ICJ. My error, in large part, here. SmithBlue (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR - "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." There is no consensus to include this material in the present form. Two editors (myself SmithBlue and 80.65.164.10) agree that the source (ICJ document) does not show a finding or ruling by the court that any of the Serbian claims occured. At present we are misleading readers. SmithBlue (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shkije

(the same word has been used by Croats)

I'm a Croat and i never heard of this word in my life?!?!?!