Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2010/August

Use of Serbian Cyrillic or Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic
As user No such user pointed out at User talk:Vanjagenije, there are guidelines which allow redirects links to stay, and my recent edit was not in conformity with them. I agree that "Serbo-Croatian phrasing can be perceived more neutral in this particular situation", but question persists about neutrality of the phrasing. Serbian Cyrillic and Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic phrasing, both sound biased (not only in this case), because they incline towards one stance: either that Cyrillic is only Serbian, or that only Serbo-Croatian (BCS) exists and that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian are same. Why Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic is completely identical to Serbian Cyrillic. I think it would be better perhaps to rename those article's - maybe to Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet, as I already proposed. Although this might also be "sort of rotten compromise in order not to ascribe any (supra-)national label to the alphabet" as No such user said is the case with Gaj's Latin alphabet, I think it is better to make this sort of compromise than to allege that Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian languages are fictitious and BCS is the only reality. The latter may stir much more controversies, although it might be true. All in all, I'm not sure. --Best regards, Biblbroks (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually after thinking over I concluded that the argument to use Serbian Cyrillic phrasing instead of Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic - because of writer's ethnicity - is stronger than the argument to use Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic phrasing because of possible greater neutrality. So it's better to leave it this way. --Biblbroks (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)