Talk:Serbian nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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.

Well, I think most of the article doesn’t have these “sins”. And please, don’t own the Serbian/Serb articles.--MaGioZal 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).