Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina

message: The entire "background" section has not a single reference. This was tagged over 5 years ago. Unreferenced information can be removed immediately, let alone giving editors notice to finish the job ... well, five years is long enough. Removed. If you have Reliable Sources (for which this topic has very, very many), then restore it properly referenced.50.111.24.147 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background - 5 yr old tags, unaddressed 

message: We have a section - "Background" - on this article that was tagged FIVE years ago for being completely unreferenced. Unreferenced material can be removed immediately. It was tagged to give interested editors a chance to backtrack and fill in the necessary in-line citations. No such activity was forthcoming. As Jimmy Wales has so often addressed on Talk Pages, unreferenced material may be removed as soon as it is posted. Well, I like to give the editing process some time. But five years has passed, and this is an encyclopedia - this is not how Wiki operates. I've tried to remove the section twice, to be reverted by editors who apparently have no regard for Wiki guidelines. Need Administrator action here. 50.111.24.147 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncited material can be removed in some cases. But in this case, we have no obvious reason to doubt its veracity, and what is needed is for someone to find citations. Perhaps instead of trying to delete material, why not try to find a reliable source and improve the article? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and needs folks like you to help build it up, not tear it down. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: DOESN'T MATTER.  ANY unreferenced material must be removed IMMEDIATELY - that's the rules here. Now, that section can be moved to the TP for interested editors to refer to and find sources. But the bottom line is, none of it should have been added this way in the first place.  I've notified Jimbo Wales and asked him to comment.  As it stands, technically, all that is Original Research, and can be voided on that basis alone.50.111.36.101 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

text: This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. - Wiki Policy 50.111.36.101 (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting Administrator help 

message: I was instructed on some other wikpedia articles there should not be Croatian for a language in usage, but Serbo-Croatian, so it seems here should not be Serbian, but also Serbo-Croatian. That goes for any other article on Wikipedia concerning topics about Serbia or Serbians, and all will be changed accordingly. Walter9 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just your opinion, you don't work in the language committee. Also the croatization of the serbian language is getting more and more know each day and history is being rewritten, because serbia tried to put croatia under itself historically and the made up serbo-croatian is just a part of it VEcev (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Both parties speak Serbo-Croation (see that article and the Wiki policy statement at the top of its Talk Page) - 'Croatian' and 'Serbian' are standardized creations - due to politics - of the same language common to both, on the most prominent diaclect.50.111.25.27 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language is Serbo-Croatian