Talk:Society against Serbs

POV and OR
The article is based only on biased Serbuian sources. That organization in question was called simply IMRO, based mainly on pro-Bulgarian anti-Serbian, anti-Greek and anti-Ottoman sentiments. No such Society against Serbs ever existed. Check Google books and Google schoolar. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have presented no reference to that being the case. The "Society" grew out of IMRO. --Z oupan 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the first time I hear about such a thing. Do you have any non-Serbian sources to back it up? Also, I'll be changing Old Serbia to just plain Serbia, I do not see a difference between the two, in case you are not, in fact implying, that Macedonia is "New Serbia".-- L a v e o l  T 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And a note on the first source - since it is an actual scientific journal it has different articles included in it. One of them, the one included in the list of notes, happens to be by Peter J. Georgeoff. Could you provide me with the title of the article in question? It would immensely help out the verification of Wiki articles if the exact publications were to be cited, not just the journal they were published in.-- L a v e o l  T 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight - this alleged Society was created by IMRO/BMARC to do what the organization was already doing? It doesn't make much sense. Or was IMRO, in fact, named "Society against Serbs" without the rest of the world knowing a thing until this article was created? Now this would be something.-- L a v e o l  T 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I see there is ongoing dispute there. This article is very obscure and most of its references are not reliable, out of date and not neutral. 46.238.25.84 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this was some sort of assassination wing of the Bulgarian committee, founded by Gruev. How are the references not neutral? (Please log in): The Bulgarian propaganda was unable to suppress the Serb advancement by cultural means, nor with espionage is not unreliable; at that time, state-sponsored propaganda sought to suppress the other's influence in Macedonia. Bulgarian propaganda was indeed unable to halt the Serbian-oriented advance in the region after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate and since the opening of Serbian schools. This is undisputed.--Z oupan  18:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All non-Serbian sources were deleted, even academic one as: The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1988, ISBN 0801494931 and Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2006, ISBN 0810849011. This is not an neutral article. 46.238.25.84 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain, and do not restore the tag without giving a clear explanation of issues.--Z oupan 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only Serbian modern academic publication claims the victims of the society were around 25 people and it ceased to exist in 1903. However, unreliable primary sources written by Serbian national propagandists in the early 20th century claim that in 1905 the number of the victims was several hundreds. More, the info confirming the IMRO was oppened in 1903 for all nationalities, incl. Serbs, was deleted together wit the academic source supporting that info. The same info is confirmed by ШЕШУМ, Урош, 1986, Друштво против Срба 1897-1902. : методи и мере бугарске дипломатије. This article includes biased facts and its neutrality is disputed. 46.238.25.84 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no information that the organization killed only 25 people and ceased to exist in 1903, could you present a source? Information regarding the IMRO and their fluctuous membership "criteria" are irrelevant. I am going to expand the article with Šešum in a bit.--Z oupan 06:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had completely forgotten about this pamphlet. Sorry, but are you seriously telling me that we need an article sourced entirely by Serbian nationalistic articles? If such a thing existed and if it was distinct from IMRO, why has no Western scholar written about it? Why not Bulgarian or Macedonian ones. It does indeed read like a pamphlet, especially with expressions like "anti-Serb Macedonians" (surely there's more to this people than being anti-Serb, unless you are a Serb ultra-nationalist, that is) and "The Bulgarian propaganda was unable to suppress the Serb advancement by cultural means" (again, one of the sides was bad, and the other was cultural and civilized?). And some time ago, I had asked you about the actual article that is the only English-language source. I already explained that Mouton could not be the author of the article, since this was a collection of articles read at a scientific congress. I really see no reason for such an article existing. Not in an encyclopaedia, that is.-- L a v e o l  T 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The expression anti-Serb Macedonians means Macedonian people with anti-Serb sentiment; how is this ultra-nationalist? The concept was indeed part of the IMRO. De Gruyter Mouton is a publisher, not an author.--Z oupan 12:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, and no article title or author is mentioned in the text here. -- L a v e o l  T 12:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ; the Mouton author is a Bulgarian. The article could perhaps be moved to a descriptive title such as "Bulgarian terrorism on Ottoman Serbs", "Attacks" or "Assassinations on Serbs in Macedonia (1897–1902)" or similar. Who ever said that it was "distinct" from the IMRO? It is still obvious that the "organization" was simply the assassination wing, the subject of the article still being the assassinations of Serbs. I am really interested in how you came to the conclusion that this article somehow was POV. The Bulgarian propaganda was unable to suppress the Serb advancement by cultural means, could you explain how this is problematic? The Serb cultural advancement (propaganda or bg. "Serbomanhood"), which did not include revolutionary organization at that time, but opening of schools etc. (prosveta) was not succesfully thwarted by the Bulgarian Exarchate and Bulgarian committees who sought to "Bulgarianize" Macedonia, part of their means of succeeding obviously being assassinations.--Z oupan 12:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not even start explaining why your wording sounds nationalistic "One side fighting with books, the other with guns, ones side was educating, the other was Bulgarianizing, etc." Fact is that the countries led an almost identical propaganda campaign in Macedonia. Labeling one as good and the other as bad is as far from the neutral point of view as possible. If you do not see what is wrong with it, I'm afraid I cannot really help you. I had asked you if the author was Georgeoff before, but I received no answer. I wanted to check the source for myself.
 * And finally - you are the one insisting on having this article. It is basically a POV fork of IMRO with only a tad of the information on the organization and solely Serbian sources. It serves no purpose, no purpose fit for an encyclopaedia, that is.-- L a v e o l  T 12:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Identical campaign as in systematically assassinating people? This is as clear evidence there is that you are the one having a clear POV about the circumstances. Who said anything about good or bad? Where is this stated? Once again your own personal POV.--Z oupan 13:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The statecampaign was identical. Assassinations were part of Serb policies in the region from 1903-1904 onwards. But back to the question - do you agree that this article is a POV fork of IMRO or not?-- L a v e o l  T 19:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are only making it clearer that these "campaigns" were not identical. I disagree, since it is a subject in its own right, with the addition of background and aftermath sections appropriate (where, perhaps, assassinations of Bulgarians by the Serbian Committee could be mentioned for balance). As I've already said, a more appropriate, descriptive, article name (and form) should be concluded.--Z oupan 05:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)