Talk:Balkan folk music

complete rewriting or deletion
this article needs complete rewriting or deletion. its so confusing. first of all "narodna muzika" means folk music and its meanings are explained in the general folk music article. For the Serbian, Macedonian, Bosnian or other particular countries or ethnic groups there are already articles such as Music of Serbia, Ethnic Macedonian music, Music of Bosnia and Herzegovina etc.. Then, I see many people writing arbitrary statements to the article, its not sourced properly at all. Then, the Croats do not say "muzika", they say "glazba". Too chaotic Dzole 11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A rewriting would be fine. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were deleted either. Whilst the article stays, there is no reason to delete the only explanatory paragraph. If you read it carefully, I actually added myself that the Croatian word is glazba. In fact, that word is not confined to the Croatian language, but it exists in the other successor Serbo-Croat languages too including Serbian. Muzika is used by some Croats too in their own language if not so much. Evlekis 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * In fact, I favour a merger rather than a deletion. Evlekis 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Narodna muzika is not a special term, its simply means folk music in these Balkan languages. Imagine editors from every ethnic groups making articles titled "folk music" in their languages. A special term would be like "bossa nova", "kazachok", a concrete form of music or dances. Narodna muzika is not a concrete form of music, its just a translation of folk music in serbian, macedonian etc. And why you brought back your unsourced arbitrary statements? and moreover why you returned that unsourced definition of what "narodna muzika" is and what is not? I'll get the article back to the basics Dzole 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On principle, you may be right about the term itself being irrelevant. But an article was created, and I am not the author. The paragraph which I extended was also cemented before I even discovered the article. As such, it will remain. Whether or not you originate from the Balkans is unclear from your user page. If you are, then you will know that the facts which I have presented are correct. Fair enough, they may be badly phrased in which case, I take no exception to you editing them. If you feel that the statements made are POV-directed and you feel you know what I am trying to get across, then feel free to stylise it more appropriately. Finally, if you challenge these unsourced arbitary statements, then state your reasons for doing so. If you feel that what I wrote is 100% incorrect, then rewrite the entire passage, but do not remove information. One minute, it tells the reader something (right, wrong, unsourced perhaps, but relevant) the next minute - it is blanked. That is not right. You can place citation tags on the parts you don't like too. All together, you have a number of options with the added bonus of nominating this page for deletion. To this end, please do not blank any paragraphs. Evlekis (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Evlekis, whether Im from the Balkans or not, it doesnt matter. You are obliged to provide sources, not to please me, but for the sake of wikipedia's reliability. You must avoid arbitrary statements. Im not objecting about any political POV or something, but you may confuse or mislead the readers. are you trying to make an encyclopedia article or a personal web page with your own definitions of what narodna muzika is? This is obnoxious. --Dzole (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We also have a duty to inform. How in this world can I prove these plain but simple details which nobody in their right minds would challenge? There are times when you have to take people's word for something. Strip Wikipedia of its analysis and you're left with a small factbook. Evlekis (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.


 * You have a duty to folow the wikipedia guidelines. Although they are often avoided by nunmerous irresponible editors, that is not an excuse for your behaviour. Im sad to conclude that you missed the whole concept of wikipedia. This is not a personal insult, but a fact. Again, this article is not made to be your personal essay on the traditional music in the Balkans. Unsourced arbitrary statements can be challenged and removed at any time, moreover you havent provided any sources whatsoever although I tried to request that by adding appropriate tags. What i got from you so far is some questionable personal research and a very bad explanation. Now i will revert everything to a "bare-bone" state, and I will request admin intervention in case this turns into an edit war. --Dzole (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I said you could nominate the page for deletion and nobody is stopping you. You wish to call in admin? Be my guest. As for your Wikipedia guidelines, I couldn't help noticing that it is completely unreferenced that Paris is the capital of France (and largest city for that matter). Don't worry about checking, this is one of billions of statements which is unreferenced. We go by sources? Wikipedia is next to nothing. We avoid arbitary statements? Wikipedia is a factbook with no text. How's it to be? Evlekis (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC) - One more thing, even if this page is deleted, I will paste my edits onto Music of South-eastern Europe or somewhere where they are appropriate to the surrounding text. I agree that the title and article itself is not wholly required, but in so far as it stands, this is how it will remain. The only way to prove that the sounds change gradually is to upload a sample of music from each province and present them one after another. Even then, how do I prove that one song really does come from that region? Original research is easy to spot, it gets thousands of challengers or it applies to subjects which could involve just one or two people (ie. John's first wife was Jill - no evidence but I knew John when they were married). When the topic is one that involves hundreds of thousands of people as part of its matrix, with thousands more on here who can correct certain parts, there is no requirement for a source. French citizens from Provencal may never have visited Paris, but they are systematicly taught at school that their government is based there and so they believe it. With that, everyone else never to have been to Paris or measured the size of other French cities may also subscribe to the plain unsourced-on-Wikipedia "opinion" that Paris is France's capital, with confidence that nobody will challenge it or ask for sources. Now over the past day, I have made one observation. Since I last came here, the page has had editors and therefore, readers. Those editors worked on the version as I left it. They had the chance to revert my edits, and did not. If you stand aside for seven days, let's see if anyone else shares your sentiment. So far, I've seen nobody else try to discredit this page or its content. Evlekis (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * I invite User:Evlekis to take a look at Verifiability. It includes this passage: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If the material you want to add to the article isn't documented anywhere else, in published form, then it shouldn't be included here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then I favour deletion of the page completely. I don't disagree with User:EdJohnston. All I say is that, without the freedom to analyse or explain atleast minor elements using personal experience, we may find ourselves deleting hundreds of long-established unchallenegd pages, particularly those based on philosophical subjects, ethics, sexuality etc. Section after section unsourced, but dozens of editors have added to them, changed bits etc. but not one deciding to wipe it. Trust me, it is a hard call. Maybe Dzole was right with his original statement that the whole article is irrelevant: it just means "national music" in one or two languages and is better covered in some of the other Balkan music pages. If anyone feels the need to delete this page, I will place my vote in favour of it. Evlekis 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Transforming this page into Novokompovana narodna muzika ("Newly composed folk music")
It's been a long time since above discussions were being held, but if anyone is reading this, I'm considering to transform this disambiguation page into an actual genre article (see sr:Novokomponovana narodna muzika), since most "narodna muzika" redirects are intended to mean that. The scope would also include the predecessors of Turbo-folk. -Vipz (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)