Skip to main content

Talk:Chetniks

Talk:Chetniks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

References[edit]

Today, the word "Chetnik" is used[edit]

- Today, the word "Chetnik" is used to refer to members of any group that "centres the hegemonic and expansionist politics driven by Greater Serbia ideology".

The word also holds pejorative meaning for Serbian ethnic group. Why is one meaning mentioned and the other is not? Who gets to choose that? It is not the full truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.215.22 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because this article is about the historical group during WW2.50.111.34.214 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being Chetnih is a honorable term, in Orthodox Serbian lands - Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language[edit]

Serbo Croatian does not exist. Change this to Serbian 220.238.13.211 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not according to linguists. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Serbo-Croatian does not exist. Today, 2 different languages exist: Serbian and Croatian. 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022[edit]

Sabrina Ramet is one of hundreds historians who wrote about ww2 in Yugoslavia. Why are her claims involved in this article? Why not claims of other historians? 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This appears to be a critique of the article, rather than a request for a specific edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I noticed that too. It is rare to quote one historian in the lead. Further down would be fine. I'm tired, but I'm tempted to reorganise the lead. These articles are very touchy. I had a Croatian friend when I was young and survived some serious Serbian/Croatian fights. In 1971. In Canada. People put a lot of incendiary content in. The different points of view must all be respected, but actually integrated. Sometimes it reads like "chopped and changed".
Generally, Wiki style is not to delete her, but add another, if you feel there is something missing. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tidying up the lead.[edit]

Hi all, I know there are different perspectives. I respect them all. The lead has been written and edited so many times it reads like "chop and change". I'm going to re-organise it into a better flow. There is some unnecessary repetition, which I will delete. Collaboration is a huge issue, I understand. I will provide context for this. Please do not revert my edit. I'm just trying to put some writerly skills into providing clarity. Trust me. Thank you. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Billy, it is obvious a compromise, but it is a long-standing one. I strongly recommend you put a draft here before rewriting the lead of a highly controversial article such as this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Jacques Rancière

2000–01 California electricity crisis