Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah, I agree, let's just keep and expand the article. --estavisti 04:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dado 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Why? Nikola 09:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neologism 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Serbia on trial 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few questions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  To reverter 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  New edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wonderful. The only problem being that this article doesn't even attempt to mention that. Live Forever 19:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Robotnik 

message: 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)
thread_title: The authors rights

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Genocide

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Totally POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hm...yes, I see your point (I haven't followed the debate/edit war). Mir Harven 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlock this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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 -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)
thread_title:  Proposal for a compromise version 

message: 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)
thread_title: Clumsy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some outsider's ideas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SrbIzLike SrbIzLike]'s edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: The term is actually 'Serbiphobia', not 'Serbophobia'. - (202.180.98.82 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs to be renamed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree.--MaGioZal 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  renaming article "anti-Serbian sentiment" or similar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section: "Forms and examples of alleged Serbophobia" needs cited sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whats the problem here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a great example of Serbophobia. -  King Ivan  07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bosniakophobia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Content of this article important? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  POv problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  deletion requests? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  who uses "Serbophobia"/"anti-Serbism"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pro-Serbian ultranationalist bias of this article needs change! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding Serbophobia 

message: Is this serbophobia or something else: In Earth album () 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Interesting question. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  False link! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Albanophobia 

message: 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:
:#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. 
:#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.
:#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction text 

message: 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)
replies: text: Mu.  Who wants to discuss this matter calmly and rationally instead of excitedly offering up false dichotomies?  —Psychonaut 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls look at the suggestions above. CheersOsli73 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is neologism, and it was deleted few times already!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  International Court of Justice, iBHY 17 December 1997, material 

message: (the same word has been used by Croats)
I'm a Croat and i never heard of this word in my life?!?!?!
Shkije does not mean subhuman, and this is not an Albanian word. 
Maybe it is connected to the word slav /slave or most likely sclavus. 
The word shkja is a variation of shkije. 
Keep it Fake (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: shkije

message: :Hi. You didn't understand and I must explain it to you. The term Vlach indeed is an ethnic term in Eastern Serbia and it refers to Romance population. But historically, in medieval Serbia the word "vlach" had the meaning of peasant, shepherd and nomadic class also. With the arrival of Turks, the term "vlach" was used as a derogatory term for Christians, and it was not derogatory because of any prejudice about the people of Vlachs, but because of the context in which the term was used. Domestic Muslims, when trying to present Christians as a sort of sub-humans used the term in its meaning of peasant, beggar or a wild man in such phrases as: 'Dirty vlach', 'Vlach bastard', 'Filthy vlach'. Even today, among Muslim Bosniaks there are people who refer to Serbs this way.
:In modern times, the term was used in Croatia where certain chauvinistic circles denied Serbs their national rights and proclaimed them not Serbian, but Vlach people who do not deserve any Serbian national rights, but instead are supposed to meld into Croatian nation or leave the country and move to Serbia. Henceforward, the term 'vlach' in Croatia IS an insult, as it refers to uncultured, non refined person from the mountainous countryland. So, all people living on the islands call their fellow countrymen on the coast 'vlachs', as those same people of the shore call those living in the mountains 'vlachs'. I understand your anger, but you must see that here the term 'vlach' is not the name of Vlach people, but the name under which Serbs were denied their rights, killed and persecuted. But I do not understand your anger with Serbs and Serbia, since it was for Bosniaks and Croats who made the term 'vlach' derogatory, and not the Serbs. To Serbs, it is derogatory only because it is used to deny Serbian human rights. Among Serbs, Vlachs are viewed as our friends and brothers. And, if I may remind you, in all history all that binds Serbs and Romanians/Vlachs/Aromanians is friendship, kinship and brotherhood. You should be angry with those who think Vlachs are to be killed and expelled from their countries, and who under that premise named Serbs vlachs. 93.86.72.173 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some sources for the first part of your argument, 93.86.72.173? I really would appreciate it. --Noirceuil (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  VLACH????????? 

message: If you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research. WP:NOR PRODUCER (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miladin Kovacevic 

message: I have to bring into question the reliability of most of the quoted sources on this page. While the article does address an important issue, some of the citations border on the ludicrous. One of the claims involves Joe Biden referring to Serbs as "...a bunch of illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists". One of the 'citations' given, Biden calls Serbs illiterate degenerates, is for an article which specifically states:
:Biden dolazi u Srbiju, a tabloidi podsjećaju na izjavu: "Srbi su nepismeni degenerici i koljači"
Translated (translation mine):
:Biden coming to Serbia, tabloids reminding [people] of proclamation: "Serbs are illiterate degenerates and butchers"
The reliable source in this case specifically states the the quote is from a tabloid. A number of other references are equally suspicious. It's statements in articles like these that undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole, and specifically cast doubt on the (in my opinion) very real problem of Serbophobia.
--Baggend (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources 

message: Not mentioned anywhere is that anti-Serb sentiment is a reaction neighbours of Serbia have because of Serb aggression and the aspirations many Serbs have for a "Greater Serbia".  Throughout history, nations that show a behaviour towards imperialism tend to not make many friends.  The thinking of the Serb is that Albanians are living on occupied land, Croats are "Catholicized" Serbs, Bonsniaks are "Islamified" Serbs, Hungarians are "Magyarized" Serbs, Austrians are "Germaized" Serbs.... if Martians exist, they are likely "Martianized" Serbs.  You will note, ALL the former Yugoslav republics except Serbia declared independence from Yugoslavia - they all could not stand being mistreated by Serbs.  It wasn't Serbia trying breakaway.  If they were treated as bad as Serbs say, does this make any sense?
To have a topic like this on Wiki without any historical context is irresponsible.  Serbs were occupied by Turks for centuries and they were brutalized.  After occupation, a sense of nationalism became ingrained in their culture so that they would never again be dominated the way they were.  This culminated in the creation of Yugoslavia which quickly became an instrument for a Greater Serbia (Croat and Bosniak politicians were censored and murdered in the original Yugoslav Kingdom).  Tito brought some balance to the country, but after he died, it once again became a Serbian vehicle for control.  This is where "Serbophobia" comes from.  You can't expect to treat neighbours with disrespect and not think there will be a reaction.
So if there is going to be a wiki page on "Serbophobia", then it should coincide with a page on the history of Serb aggression.207.236.177.82 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbophobia a reaction to Serb Aggression 

message: I didn't check them all, but reference 41 is now defunct and does not go to the article in question.  Reference 42 goes to a blog/opinion website.  Those are the only 2 I checked... it makes me wonder what I would find if I bothered to check them all.  Pretty shoddy work.154.5.223.29 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References need to be checked.... 

message: I was writing an explanation why I edited this article. In fact, I was still in the middle of editing this article-to make this article more neutral. Sorry, if I am not the Speedy Gonzales. Sorry, if my slow, shaking hands (not my own choice) bother you.  I tried to remove some unsourced or/and biased claims, and remove some biased sources (I was not vandalising, there were other sources, supporting the claim written in this article).
I was removing and some totally unrelated and messed up parts of this article. Some parts of this article seemed like Serbian ultra-nationalistic rant. 
This  article is yet again, very biased, and seems to show all people from Serbia-surrounding countries as as nazi-genocidal lunatics. That was the reason of my edit. 
In fact, there were less than 20 SECONDS  since my edit. THE PERSONS DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO LOOK AT MY CHANGES?!?! Or was it because of a non-Serbian IP??!?!? 
I am really wondering if some people on wikipedia have a life at all...
(Why I am even trying?)
Every time I try to edit an article some butt-hurt wikipedia tough-guy reverses my edit.
I didn't even vandalise the page. SERIOUSLY! Is 10 minutes of waiting too long for you?!!?! Remember why wikipedia is LAUGHED by everyone and banned by some schools. It's becoming the internet-dump trash, not worthy of reading and researching. 
I tried to contribute to wikipedia. Since my english is not perfect, I was not writing articles, I was simply trying to help, expand, argue...
FACT:This site is run by ultra-butt-hurt-nationalist who are so butt-hurt when someone try to edit their so called perfect  article. 
In the end, it seems my antivirus is going to block this site forever. My co-workers and friends have already done it. 
Good bye, and thank you for reading my rant which was no different than this article. Here, I have sources for my claims :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrites 
EDIT: 
Someone is quick to revert my changes, obviously as an attempt to annoy people, but the very same person is slow to respond. Oh, congratulations.  
I assume that editor is not some angry, ultra nationalist? So, I am sorry for that accusation. But why all wikipedia editors, LOVE to annoy people? WHY?!?! --93.138.235.89 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What the heck

message: Per talk in Persecution of Serbs, an article that is completely POV as of now, I propose that the contents of it be merged into Serbophobia. --Sulmues (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --Vinie007 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge