The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ^ask? 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia[edit]

Unfinished nomination. mikka (t) 21:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. According to the article, the word has been used twice. The article itself isn't terrible, though, and the useful information in it should probably go somewhere. Jkelly 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Looking at the history of this page, I suspect (and apologies if I'm wrong) that the nominator has a POV agenda. Jameswilson 03:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Dado nominated the article for deletion because "the side who started this article has not presented valid claims and/or answered the issues raised on the discussion page". However, he doesn't state what are the issues. Claim that serbophobia can not be characterized as psychological disorder (phobia) is answered by the fact that the article does not characterise it that way (see Talk:Serbophobia#Disputed). Claim that the term is not notable is answered by presenting some 1500 Google hits in various languages, and showing that, comparatively, it is used as much as russophobia (see Talk:Serbophobia#Not Notable / Neologism). Claim that there is no definition was answered by providing a source with a definition (see Talk:Serbophobia#Sources; definition referred to can be found f.e. in [1]). Claim that the term is neologism is answered by finding a reference to its use in 1986 (after the nomination, though I found the reference before; see Talk:Serbophobia#Neologism). Nikola 04:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See Talk:Serbophobia#Disputed. I have raised several issues and no one has responded to those issue. In fact few have outright ignored them by reverting suggested edits. In addition to my comments on the talk page, the claim "Serbian Writers Association also organized a meeting on February 28, 1989 with the theme of "Serbophobia" that discussed Croatian genocide of Serbs" fails to note that around same time Serbian nationalism (as other nationalisms) in the Balkans was on the rise and portraying Serbs as victims of phobia was one of the tools to raly Serbian nation into Yugoslav Wars that followed. In fact the article as it currently read does a very similar thing. Ironicaly, most victims of Serbophobia in last 20 years were non-Serbs. I don't see this article being able to overcome these problems while it is obvious that its purpose is to continue the politics of spreading fear among Serbian people and non-Serbs as a reflex to former, and as such presents an article of no value or even damaging to Wikipedia. --Dado 05:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dado makes a good point; but I am generally against deletion of articles. They should be, rather, improved. If we would delete every disputable article, there would be less than 10 wiki articles alltogether :))) HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you enumerate the issues? And, when you say that "Most victims of Serbophobia in last 20 years were non-Serbs", do you acknowledge that it exists or otherwise it couldn't have victims? Nikola 06:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This word does not deserve an article of its own, it’s a term devised for explicitly political purposes during the late 80s and early 90s. It can not be compared to "Russophobia" or "Islamophobia" because both of these deal with prevalent general social attitudes against ethnic and religious groups based on their culture and heritage. The term Serbophobia, on the other hand, is used virtually exclusively in a political context, in either an accusatory manner or as a justification. To say that it is "comparatively" as common as the term "Russophobia" is ridiculous, and based on some shady calculation certain users made involving army size and GDP. A simple Google search shows that the term "Russophobia" is far, far more common than "Serbophobia". Of the results that do show up on Google, I think they adequately manifest the nature of this term and exactly why it does not belong on Wikipedia. Of the initial 10 results that come up on the first page:

The #1 result is the respective Wikipedia article

2 come from a radical right political site

6 of them come from the same two Serbian political writers and analysts.

1 comes from a book on Serbian propaganda efforts during the late 80s and early 90s

If this all wasn't enough, the single legitimate source provided has been completely misinterpreted. The quote reads as follows: "Furthering this incipient nation-fever was the extraordinary memorandum issued to the public in 1986 by the prestigious Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, condemning the perceived presence of "Serbophobia" in the central government of Yugoslavia." The use of this as a reference for some traditional use of the term would be fine and dandy if the word wasn’t placed in quotes; but it is. This is because the author views the term with skepticism and questions its validity, implying (just as Dado mentioned) that the word was used by Serb officials to drum up support amongst the populace for their nationalist policies. I challenge any neutral observer to read the context of the word, notice the tone of the passage, read the preceding paragraphs, and not reach the same conclusion as I did[2]. Asim Led 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• • Asim, you are trying to mislead people. The quote was given as evidence that the word was used in 1986 and so is not a neologism, not as evidence that it is valid.
  • For use of the word in various contexts by non-Serbian authors you may refer to Serbophobia#Use in various languages. Nikola 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we have articles about words that don't really exist and are only (rarely) used by pro-Serb political commentators? Thats what the source you provided argues, and I have to say no. A delete is favorable at this point. Asim Led 18:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Asim Led makes a good point here; and if not for my general disliking of plain deletion of articles; I would most definately vote "Strong delete". It is to my opinion that articles have to be improved rather. Additionally; this article should belong to the wiki dictionary, rather then here if it's nothing more then a term... HolyRomanEmperor 12:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I think, this is a pathetic "article" based on well-known Serb nationalistic propaganda. The word "serbofobia" or similar word constructions were used by Serb war criminals to justify their war crimes during the war in Yugoslavia e.g. Ratko Mladić, Biljana Plavšić, Slobodan Milošević...--Emir Arven 09:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point to a quote by any of them where they do so? Regardless, why would such use of the word justify deletion of the article from Wikipedia? Isn't such use something worth informing the readers about? Nikola 10:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want me to start. Maybe at the trial: 31 August - 1 September: President Milosevic makes his historic 'opening speech' accusing Germany, Vatican and USA for the break-up of Yugoslavia, tragedy of its peoples, alliance with terrorists, occupation of Serbia and persecution of Serbian freedom fighters. The main tools of this aggression are NATO and ICTY. Crime against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed. Read it here --Emir Arven 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And again the same story; why does everything have to do with politics. Any subject started beginning from, duh, let's say clay ends up with ethnic cleansing and ICTY. Geez. In any case, what does the upper-mentioned have anything to do with an ethnic hatred (maybe with a part of the article, but why outright deletion?) HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emir, you too want to mislead people. The page you gave link to doesn't mention the term "serbophobia" anywhere. Furthermore, Milosevic doesn't admit that he committed any war crimes, so he surely won't justify them in any way. Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Emir_Arven brings the same story here... HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont discuss with people who lied about my contribution. --Emir Arven 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously (since I directed to you) I do :) HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cliché... HolyRomanEmperor 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - this is pure politically-motivated absurdity; the term is not in current usage anywhere, including Serbia. Instead it emanated from Serbian propagandists atempting to cover up the Serbian poitical establishment's disregard for international law, human rights and human dignity. The simpple test is: do the authors really believe that people would go out of their way to criticise or oppose Serbian politics if it did not engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing and racism? I think not. This kind of article represents a mis-use of wikipedia as it has no practical informational or educational benefit.
  • Note: the comment was made by anon editor, 81.86.117.89 who had (possibly) three contributions before. Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this is serbophob attack on the term. At least three persons here are spreading anti-Serbian propaganda, which can be seen in their edits, as well as from their explanation for this deletion. If anyone knows what is phobia agains one people, Jews know it and one Jew said that there is a phobia against Serbs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Jew is Slavko Goldstein, one of the 20% Yugoslav Jews that survived the Holocaust. HolyRomanEmperor 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pathetic that you are trying to involve Jews here. If anyone knows about Serb propaganda and mytholog it is Tilman Zülch. "Serbofobia" is just another Serb myth, based on Vojislav Šešelj and Slobodan Milošević accusations against the rest of the world (and Vatican?!)--Emir Arven 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think its absolutely pathetic that you resort to accusations of "Serbophobia" to defend the term. Do you know any of us personally? Do you know if any of us have Serb relatives, by any chance? Friends? Co-workers? I used to have a high opinion of you as a wikipedia editor; one whose quality contributions transcended the lines of nationality that so often marred input from our region. Now I see that you're little more than Smolenski's virtual sock-puppet, subject to the whims of general nationalist outrage among your less-credible peers. Asim Led 23:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand two things: (Greater) Serbian nationalist propaganda and Serbophobia. Whether anyone liked it or not; both exist deeply.

This is the first time that I hear about profession of "humanrightist"... Why is Tilman so special? Nikola 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Gorann Andjelkovic 13:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - The article is a stub, not wikified and has several other issues; but they are bound to improve one way or another... By the way, if its just about a term, it belongs to the wiki dictionary. HolyRomanEmperor 13:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I live that everyday --Cécilou 14:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak to normal keep - per Millosh, but I'm not interested in politics. --Dungo (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - — SasaStefanovic • 15:00 17-12-2005

• Strong keep - No reason whatsoever to delete it. True, article should be expanded, but that is exactly an argument against deletion -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Nobody is afraid of Serbs. People are afraid of dictators that may be head of state in every country not only in Serbia.--Epirus 21:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this is serbophob attack on the term. See Millosh's comment. --M. Pokrajac 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - as per Millosh, Pokrajac and others. This is a bizarre, entirely unfounded serbofob attack. What this term was used to justify in the near history is a topic for the talk page of this article and not an argument for deletion. Whether somebody is afraid of Serbs, just hates them for no reason or perhaps both, is again their own psychological issue and a topic for this article rather than a reason to delete an article about this term. For a very nice example of this still well and alive, enjoy this homepage http://www.thompson.hr of a man who still draws tens of thousands of youths who get ecstatic every time Serbs are mentioned in one of the many very unpleasantly peculiar ways. --Dzordzm 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the comment was made by an editor who had no non-interwiki or talk page edits before. Asim Led 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as the person is notable member of community on Serbian Wikipedia as well as he has PhD from one big University from USA. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, completely irrelevent. Wikipedia policy is that the votes of users who dont have a certain number of edits prior to their casting will not be counted in matters such as these. End of story.
        • Which Wikipedia policy? This user has a couple of thousands of edits on Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same Wikipedia policy employed when calculating votes on the Macedonian Slavs/Macedonians issue several weeks back. Asim Led 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This was a local rule for this voting, introduced by ChrisO before the voting process started. Please, find some official rule on English Wikipedia which says that only English Wikipedia user edits are counted for votes for deletion. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case I ask for the relevance of User Smolenski's earlier comment. Asim Led 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • There are some differences between anonymous user with three edits and user who has a couple of thousands of edits on Wikipedia. Or you think there are no differences? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I see no difference. In both cases one's credibility is questioned while their argument is untouched. The anonymous user's point is quite valid and well-put - no less valid or well-put than your comrades point just above. Asim Led 04:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't see any problem for accepting the vote of any registered user. Voting is still open and the user can register her/himself and verify vote. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I am perfectly fine with my vote not being counted despite my bureaucrat status and 1000+ edits on Wiki. At least I never contaminated the English Wikipedia with poor language, semi-truths, images violating copyright, and nationalistic deletion votes like some others. I would rather see Mr. Asim Led attempt to refute my argument. To claim that Serbophobia does not exist is plain comical.--Dzordzm 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • My "poor language, semi-truths, images violating copyright, and nationalistic deletion votes" have gotten my articles featured status on the front page. I admire your spirited participation in this debate (though you fail to overcome your colleagues' glaring hypocrisy) but I would appreciate it if you refrained from scouring my talk-page and edits list for minor grammatical errors and ancient rookie mistakes to use as fodder for your unfounded personal attacks. Thank you. Asim Led 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This was not a comment directed against you, rather a description of things I myself have refrained from doing. I also refrain from checking other editors' edit list, a virtue not shared by all.--Dzordzm 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                          • (The copyvio comment was in particular motivated by the image showing Ratko Mladić in Srebrenica, which was uploaded by user Edvin with no source information at all and who could never be bothered to answer my question about the source so that I could perhaps use the image on Serbian wiki.) As there is another user voting for deletion in the same status as me, I think we can close this discussion about voting rights as irrelevant. Please continue to contribute to the English and other Wikipedias as the active netizens of these respective projects see fit and worthy of their praise.--Dzordzm 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Valid and well-put? "The term is not in current usage anywhere" - except in Junge Welt, El Pais, Segodnya and various other media. "It emanated from Serbian propagandists" - says who? "Serbian poitical establishment's disregard for international law" - it actually has more regard than most establishments. Even if the anon would have been a registered user, his comment is false and invalid. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep See Millosh's comment --Jovanvb 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See Dado's comments. Also, so called Serbophobia is created by same minds in Serbia who planned Greater Serbia, genocide in Bosnia, Srebrenica Massacre, just to mention some of the many attrocities done or planned by Serbia in the 1990's. Some groups in Serbia really cannot deal with the facts of the wars in the 90's, but sure they can make the victims out of themselves, arguing "everybody's against us!". No, nobody's against a common Serb, but the Serbian people must face their own history and recent "doings" of their state/government, just like the Germans did after the WWII. When they do that, they will throw the ugly nationalism away that poisons not only the society in Serbia, but the neighbouring countries, as well (this goes for these countries, too).

Anyway, the article should at least have these facts included. --(Nidurhaf) 10:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: the comment was made by an editor who had no user page. --M. Pokrajac 11:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: But who is also a significant contributor on another language version of wikipedia, much like Dzordzm. Asim Led 18:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone is significant contributor on another Wikipedia, I don't see any problem for accepting the vote. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, when such a contributor votes, someone should say so, just so that others know it. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Manojlo. Agree with Milosh.
• Strong keep, see Millosh's comment. --Djordjes 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis that the population of Serbia have a particular belief (whether it be right or wrong) that they are unfairly treated. A bit of NPOVing would be timely. David | Talk 20:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - you can't say that there aren't people who don't like Serbs, there are many of those. Just like Russophobia (many Americans don't like Russians), or Anti-Semitism. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have used triple negative. Could you clarify your comment. Also can someone answer me following questions as this is quickly becoming a sort of a current issue and this term (which is being disputed may I remind) is now being used on this page to attack users who are merely posting their comments. The same accusations are being used to gather defensive or "politically correct" support by others. Some perhaps think that if they apply this emotionally charged word in a real situation, such as in their minds is this situation, that it will justify the common use of the term and as a result the article on Wikipedia: Following questions should be the only guideline to settle this issue: 1.Who are people that hate Serbs 2.Why do they hate them 3.What specifically have they done that can be caratherised as phobic behaviour towards Serbs.4. If so how can such behaviour be caratherised as phobic. Thank You --Dado 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. The members of the Ustaša movement and their supporters (quite a mass), perhaps? 2. Because of the Serbs' domination of the Kingdom, I think 3. caused the death (directly and indirectly) of over 1,000,000 Serbs and 4. you got me there :) HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's that in Serbian: "ne mozes reci da nema ljudi koji ne vole Srbe" - hope it's clearer. As to your questions: 1. a lot of various people hate Serbs; 2. for various reasons; some, because some Serbs did something bad to them, some because some Serbs did something bad to someone else, most because of anti-Serbian propaganda they've been exposed to; 3. various things, for example, started the First World War, created concentration camps for Serbs, or bombed Serbia; 4. as is written in the article, The term is used in a non-clinical sense, as a political accusation. Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not dispute that there actually may be a social fenomena in today's society that is similar to "serbophobia", but this is though not scientifically proved and there are no real signs of it yet, therefore the article may be something confusing. Damir Mišić 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you vote strong delete on the basis that the article may be "something confusing"? Wouldn't that rather be weak keep or weak delete? Nikola 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Have you noticed that Dado, who is a Bosniak, voted strong delete, and Damir Misic, who is a Croat, voted strong delete, too. Now that's Serbophobia! :) --213.244.208.152 14:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would ask anonimous user above to refrain from personal attacks. Also your uneducated presumtion of my (and Damir's) identity has been noted. --Dado 14:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that is just not fear, I am referring to the comment laid out by the anonymous user above. I am accused by him/her of being serbophobic, which is absolutely not true. I do not in any way condone judgement of people based on their ethnicity, religion, color and so on. The way I see it the actual nationalpobic person here is the anonymous user himself, by judging my voting, based on my ethnic background, just shows how much croatophobic he is. Damir Mišić 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that u HolyRomanEmperor hiding behind IP? --Emir Arven 15:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I might have overexadurated my voting - changing the outcome of my vote Damir Mišić 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep PANONIAN (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Heavy keep --TheFEARgod 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - similar articles exist like Anti-Polonism and Serbophobia should be written in similar way. Luka Jačov 17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.