Talk:Gazimestan speech

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

[edit] Using questionable or self-published sources Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB WP:SPS Some sources pose special difficulties:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

Comment

It is interesting that (mis)representation of the speech occupies more space in the article than would the speech itself. 79.101.131.251 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your non-constructive comment. If you're referring to the 'Responses to the speech' section, then it isn't a '(mis)representation' because it is full of quotes and referenced opinions (which the article makes it very clear of), our readers/ audiences are able to to tell what is a quotation/ opinion; let them make up their own minds if they agree with a quote or an opinion. This is an encyclopaedia, we state facts. If a historian/ politician/ journalist comments on a subject, which is related to the article's subject, we can say that 'Person X said Y' because it is a fact that Person X said Y. We're not necessarily saying that what Person X said is a fact, but it is a fact that Person X said Y; and if person X (assuming that person X is notable) said Y and it is relevant/ notable to the article subject, then it should be included. We shouldn't deprive our readers/ audience of knowledge/ information, if it is POV information then we should inform our readers of the POV which the article does anyway. IJA (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All is fine, but one could also include a bit more of the speech itself. Similar with this one. At least that one has a valid link to the speech. 213.198.249.208 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gazimestan speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407010431/http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/kosovo/istorija/kosovo_migrations/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86-3-301.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Category

Please stop arguing over the edit-summary in justification of edit-warring and understand that "irredentism" definition is irrelevant. It is only article content that matters, especially if it is properly referenced. Please note that this is WP:ARBEE scope and removal of proper category on the basis of editors own personal opinion is disruptive and could end up on ANI. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No it's not "properly referenced". From the source: "In his Gazimestan speech, Milošević narrated the 1389 loss broadly, as the beginning of centuries of Serbian victimizations, and the victimhood nationalism that this narration helped constitute not only reanimated an ancient irredentism, but also fuelled new grievances during the 1990s against Croats, Bosnians and even Milošević’s Serbian opponents, whom he portrayed as preventing national unity and perpetuating the long-standing historical subordination that led to traumatization. Apart from this being badly written by the author, the link between the speech itself and what commentators would later label "irredentism" elsewhere in Yugoslavia is insanely weak. If anything, a better category would be Anti-Serbian sentiment because at least that is what was being addressed in the speech. Bottom line, this speech was about Serbian victimhood, but at no time did it seek that Serbs break away from Yugoslavia or that its internal border be expanded. When you add categories. the article needs to be an example of the category. So Greater Serbia is fine for the irredentism category, but a SFRJ-era speech about a region within its nominal limits does not warrant the category. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Serbian sentiment for this article? That would be strange category, but I am not surprised with the suggestion after reding your opinion about the references. Category is appropriate - speech is the main point of reference for every scholar on breakup of Yugoslavia and its beginnings and inducement. Your analysis of the speech, with all due respect, does not matter. Even if these sources didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in referenced analysis speech is seen by both scholars (including James Gow, which is used in the article elsewhere) as the announcement of Serbian nationalism going aggressive and territorial, and they explain that in more than one word. Is it badly written by author or not is a matter for RSN not for TP discussion, while the link between the speech content and later analysis by scholars is everything for writing article in English Wikipedia (WP:SECONDARY) (that the link is somehow "weak" is your impression and personal opinion, I find both Lerner and Bieber, including Gow eloquent and broad). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Oranges. Can I also add that the whole irredentism category for Serbian, Croatian and some other nations could do with reviewing. On quick glance before heading out for chores this morning I came across subjects which don't quite fit, but at the same time there are others that do. I stand by the position that irredentism is about border expansion and the ideologies associated with it. Based on the above intercept copied from the source, the connection between the Gazimestan speech and Serbian irredentism is WP:SYNTH: joining the dots of unwarranted assumption. I am happy to see an AfD for consensus just as long as the material stays off per WP:ONUS. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What is synth, exactly? By whom? I noted above - even if the source didn't mention in it by word, it is still irredentism, because in analysis of the speech almost all scholarship describes it as an announcement of Serbian nationalism becoming aggressive and territorial, and they use literally volumes to explain that. (Note: Category itself was renamed from Greater Serbian nationalism, and as I said earlier it is a category not a label or statement.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yours and Ip's removal of the referenced content from the section is absolutely groundless. If you don't agree or you don't like it that's OK, you have every right to think and feel whatever you want, and you can make your case here in TP, but outright removal is disruptive. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

OK there are numerous issues here. It is not just an IP but another editor. That's an analysis of the speech that forges a synthesis with later events, rather than being on-topic. Moving on. There is enough scholarly commentary out there that does not consider the hardline approach by Miloevic in Kosovo both at the time of the speech, nor later during the Kosovo war as "nationalist". The fact is that Serbian nationalism is a very real thing, yet the article of his Socialist Party of Serbia explores the parallels and the deviations in great detail. So while certin policies may be looked upon as harsh, it is questionable whether it is "Serbian nationalism". Hereinafter, nationalism is not necessarily irredentism. Then where Kosovo is concerned, it was within Serbia's limits in 1989 and constitutionally Serbia considers it its own province today. However, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and parts of Croatia make up the territories of irredentism for Serbs, and these are the regions that may be linked to irredentism where attempts have been made to incorporate them into an independent Serbia (ie. not within a Yugoslav federation of any time). So by Serbian irredentism you mean the big spoken about event which never happened (ie. Serbia taking over Montenegro, then Macedonia, then Bosnia, then parts of Croatia), then the Gazimestan speech is not an example of this, and its keynote speaker never advocated any part of it beyond the possible partition of Bosnia. That is why it is SYNTH. As for Kosovo and "Greater Serb" conspicacies, it is a non-starter. Kosovo is as far as every Serb concerned, already redeemed and unlawfully taken from them. Therefore, a speech inside of Serbia (where Kosovo was) about Serbian victimhood is not the same as a Serbian claim over Macedonia, therefore it is a false category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:CIR issue with Santasa99. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is your or anybody else's right to question these two sources, Bieber and Lerner (including Gow), but not here and not by edit-warring. You can question them in RSN, nothing else gives you right to remove them on the ground of your personal opinion and POV - not even ONUS provides you with a basis to remove entire paragraph of content refed by sources used in this scope extensively. What you and Juicy doing is disruptive POV. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Bieber and Lerner do not say "The Gazimestan speech was an example of Serbian irredentism" or anything to that effect. That's what they need to have done if you want the category. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, tag-teaming in POV on issues related to nationalism is hardly collaboration in building encyclopedia. You are removing content, which is properly refed, and then claim synthesis (Juciy for lack of a better argument even call out Wp:CIR, with his 700+ edits). You have missed the venue for questioning sources, and then disruptively removed refed content, but I won't. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

CIR may be a bit over the top. I can assure that that we have no association outside of en.wiki so TAGTEAM may also be out of turn. But he only reverted you here the once. Another time was Melcous and another time was an IP which is certainly not mine, and I cannot speak for the other two. That said, I am not making bold reverts and running away like so many do elsewhere. I am happy to have this conversation with you and to explore alternatives. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You are reverting me in turns to avoid 3RR on three issues (one of which is content properly refed in two RS) on two different articles, and with the same POV, I have every right to say that you are tag-teaming to edit-war without breaking 3RR. Malcous argument is hollow, and made in edit-summary - she questioned two scholars whose work is extensively used on Balkan nationalism, and made bewildering claim that paragraph is self referenced - I mean, User:Melcous should explain herself about her removal and such an outlandish rational here, I would like to hear her voice, before I go to Noticeboard over this affair. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Slow down a bit. We are not taking turns at anything. This is more Juicy oranges' area of interest than mine as he is from the former Yugoslavia whereas I am ex-Soviet. My knowledge on the former Yugoslavia is not as good as his or many others and nor do I claim it to be. But my guess is that he is more concerned about the other article than this one. The fact he was watched over my contributions (as I may do his and some other people's) does not mean we are in federation with one another. We're actually two days into this dispute now. Perhaps Melcous could help the situation by providing more detail here on the talk, but I wouldn't personally go praising the works of thoese two authors. Sure their backgrounds make them reliable sources but from what I can tell, they (and so many other self-affirmed "experts" on Balkan affairs) are sublimely ignorant on a great number of matters. In my experiences, historians and political commentators usually compile their tripe to sell a narrative and not to distribute facts. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources, when questioned here without any kind of agreement in sight, or if someone believes they are fundamentally flawed, are then discussed in appropriate forum, which is RSN. But, we can't dismiss them simply on the ground of !vote. Editors who question sources needs evidence not a long explanation of their opinion and believe and larger number of like-minded editors, and since no evidence is provided in this forum by any of those who are against the paragraph which I included and refed with Bieber and Lerner its removal is then disruptive. Any further discussion on both authors should be (or should have been) conducted at RSN, and only if enough evidence is provided, regardless of how many editors providing them (even one good, strong evidence against would be enough), only then we can dismiss content refed by them. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Moving back inward). I think, Santasa, that we've reached the point where we all need more views. The removal of the details were not based on the sources being questioned as such, but on whether their inclusion is apposite to the article. Similarly, does the category belong to this article. Much of the latter is down to WP:CATEGORY guidelines, and I can tell you that if someone is a heterosexual but happens to be a gay rights activist, then you don't get to add LGBT persons as a category simply because of how closely he is linked to it. As it happens, I can link two categories to this page which are also inapposite, but are far closer to the content of the speech than Serbian irredentism, these being Albanian irredentism and Anti-Serbian sentiment. I'd personally place "Serbian irredentism" third in line here but per WP:CATEGORY, the speech was an example of none of thre three. It addressed the second item, has been used by opponents of Milosevic as a ruse to get the the latter item, and by others as an excuse for the former. Are you happy to go ahead with an AfD? It must be neutrally written and short, while the details of what you believe and I believe should be left for one another's iVote and comments. How do you feel about this solution? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My reasoning is different, and I have no association with any other editor here, but I agree the paragraph should not be reinserted unless a consensus is reached. By "self referenced" I meant Adam B. Lerner - there is no source where anyone else is saying he is an expert on this topic. A paragraph was introduced that quotes him as if he is an expert, but is sourced solely to his own work. Similarly, the wiki article on him (created by Santasa99) is sourced entirely to his own resume and websites, so there is absolutely no secondary independent sourcing which would demonstrate that his views should be included here. Melcous (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And Coldtrack I think you might mean a WP:RFC rather than a WP:AFD? Melcous (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Kudos Melcous. I did indeed mean RFC and made a total blunder. Struck out the two references to wrong type of discussion. Thanks for your input and your correction. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead with both 3O and RfC, I have asked administrator familiar with the scope for help too. But you have removed categories on your own POV whim on two occasions and edit-warred over those removals in manner usually associated with 3RR sidestepping by way of Wikipedia:Tag team. Those are all POV removals, also without consensus, and you should revert yourself first if you are to show you are neutrally acting in good faith. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For the last time, this article is about a speech. The speech not not infer expanding borders. It is thereby not a POV. You have proven that you do not know the meaning of "irredentism", nor do you know the meaning of "nationalism", and moreover you don't know how to interpret sources. That goes for Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina too. In these cases, the removal of "irredentism" would be as much as POV as it would have been if you added Category:Cross-Strait relations just because a so-called "reliable source" happened to mention Taiwan and Kosovo on the same paragraph, and someone came along and remove the cat. 3O won't help you as you are up against three as it is. That's a 3O and a 4O. This needs an RFC. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only that you are POV pushing, now you are discussing me and my abilities as well. What I know or don't know about irredentism is irrelevant, just like your POV on "so-called reliable sources" and these supposedly illuminating juxtaposing of Taiwan and Kosovo with Milosevic's ideological make-up, speech and Serbian irredentism. Bravo. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're showing ignorance. Admitting that the possibility that you know about irredentism is irrelevant (your words), and then claiming Milošević to have had an ideologucal make-up which included "irredentism". Really? Are you claiming he sought independence for Serbia and then sought to expand its borders? Are you claiming he sought to reinstate the monarchy to replace head of state? Forget irredentism, just take the tenets of basic Serbian nationalism. This is a subject I could quiz you on. WP:CIR is a severe issue with you. You do not know the events which led to the speech, the backstory at the time, the relevance of the event nor the aftermath. You have simply heard of the event, read one or two publications about it, and then connected the dots of completely unwarranted assumptions. You accuse Coldtrack of "POV pushing" when he has challenged you enough times now to produce the line in the speech where Milošević called for the expansion of Serbia's borders, the absence of which cannot even engender a discussion on "irredentism". I say it is you who edits on articles of the former Yugoslavia which the intention of selling an agenda by distorting well established facts. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. You should apologize and then for future discission you should tone down your rhetoric. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Message redacted to remove what may have been construed as personal attacks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, You appear to have taken issue with how I frame my sentences. So let me clarify something. It is up to every one of us here how we refer to things. If I wish to qualify WP:RS with qualifiers such as so-called and using italics and "scare quotes", I am not committing a violation of any of the site's rules. It would be dishonest and totally disingenuous if I were to pretend not to have known that many of the items of the "blacklist" have been cultivated as sound by perfectly constructive editors, and that items from the "whitelist" have likewise been queried and challenged. If I were to support a new comment to the article with something non-RS then indeed that would be a breach of rules, and you would be within your rights to remove the source and add a citation tag or even remove the piece altogether. However, if we were to explore it deeper at the reliable source noticeboard, you'll find that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a slightly tougher task because the subject is open to debate. Hereinafter, I guarantee you that when it comes to news and politics (so not counting science, films etc), you couldn't thresh the whitelist from the blacklist and say, "all of List A has this in common while List B has that in common". It starts with a basic principle until the defenders of that principle hit a wall and find themselves losing A-list contenders and/or having to admit B-list contenters. So they look for secondary reasoning, then tertiary, and in the end, nothing sticks. You have state-owned media on both lists, and free media on both lists. You have non-profit organisations on both sides of the divide, some of which (such as the Clinton Foundation, not only pro-west but pro-Democrats) perched on the A-list. The you have to issue of circular reasoning. To give you an example, take the Syrian White Helmets. Good guys or bad guys? We have to say "good" because WP:RS says "good". But it doesn't end there. It seems that NON-RS is singled out for special treatment, being named and shamed as "disinformation" once again because RS says so. So even before you begin to analyse this, you see that RS does not have to prove itself because its extant status is being held up as sanctimonious. We merely operate on the basis that if RS claims something to be true, then it is. So how did source 1 get to be RS in the first place, and source 2 get to be non-RS? Every single response invokes a fallacy bar none. Be that begging the question, appeal to authority, faulty generalisations and others. One of the most glaring examples rather involves Syrian coverage and the White Helmets. The claim they are "bad guys" is "disinformation" because RS says so. RS incluces the BBC, and the BBC by its own admission reports from Syria citing the Helmets as one of their sources. Ergo, if the Helmets tell the BBC "we are good guys", then that is the all the proof you need that they are "good" according to RS principles. So even from the perspective of the reliable sources, it is an argument from repetition. I have debated at the Helmets page, and the RS page, and have been shut down every time not by having someone tell me something I didn't know, but by the conversation being forced to end. So I usually distance myself from matter too contentious and too reliant on the "whitelist" and overly opposed to the "blacklist". This one (Gazimestan) is very straightforward on that one matter we have discussed. I am not challenging the sources here so much I am saying, "this is not what they have claimed". Yet for all the community's attempts to create a whitelist and a blacklist, there is no consistency in purpose and they struggle to stay on target. This is why I may use qualifiers at times. But I am not violating the rules on the project. Read the reliable sources closely and from time to time they inadvertently say the quiet bit out loud, and this is where the community steps in - to gang up by the dozen and bully the questioning editor who is by himself and often bound by 1RR. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous, this is most bizarre reply I have ever heard from someone with 100+ thousands edit under its belt and tendency to review new pages. You are literally re-interpreting old ones or inventing new policies and guidelines on the fly. First, what new article on Lerner has to do with him being referenced, who says that he must have an article on English Wikipedia at all to be used as a source? Second, how Lerner is not independent secondary source? And last but not least, since when we have to give another secondary source to prove that one already included is an expert on the field - and do you even know how and where process of questioning and proving one's expertise should be conducted? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it bizarre. I would admit it is perhaps a bit cynical, but if you hang around WP:COIN long enough you see that it is not at all uncommon for an editor to create an article about a person whose notability is not clearly demonstrated, and then insert references to that person in other articles to demonstrate their expertise. I'll leave it to the rest of the you to discuss the content here. My questions to throw into the mix would be, what value does naming Lerner here add to this particular article? Why is his view important to quote above the views of anyone else? And even if it was agreed to be included, surely it could be done in a far more integrated way than the proposed edit which interrupts the paragraph flow and was grammatically confusing. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I know from where your idea comes from, and I know that editors create articles to make sure their source choices are notable and can be used in refing. However, you are experienced enough to know that such misguided expectation is nevertheless irrelevant, simply because we don't need our sources' authors to meet usability (reliability) criterion by having an article of their own in English Wikipedia. I didn't and would never use such a banal argument, like it's a fact that so-and-so author has an article, because that's not evidence of his notability and/or usability for referencing. That's pointless and it does not matter, after all vast majority of authors used in this scope and indeed whole project has no article of their own and they are still notable and widely used. Even more so because we have authors with huge articles, some with GA status, whose works can't be used as a source because they are unreliable. Lerner article, which I created, may or may not withstand notability guideline pressure, but that's absolutely irrelevant for Lerner reliability as an expert in the field of victimhood nationalism and it will never be, by any stretch of the imagination, a precondition for his reliability as a source. Lerner is published and cited expert, and if you have problem with him take it to RSN, if anything his view and analysis is on equal to Gow and other authors refed. But your question is a classic strawman, without any specific objection - why does anyone else's view matter in this article, or, why is Serbian chauvinist poet Matija Beckovic reaction more important than Lerner's who is published and cited scholar? (I am not sure that my edit interrupts the "paragraph flow", because it is a paragraph entirely of its own, in a section where every paragraph is completely isolated with every para covering specific person reception/reaction. Any issue of grammatic and composition could have been corrected without edit-warring and POV pushing. Additionally, consensus is achieved by making a better argument, not voting on POV, and I am yet to hear reasonable argument.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are writing about, nor am I interested in reading these essay-long elaborations on your point of view on everything from editing to RS to state of world media and politics, without much or any relation to problems at hand. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to which of three editors this comment was directed towards as the layout looks as if you're replying to yourself. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)