Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While not uncontested, there is consensus that this article is a POVFORK and thus should be deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Demonization of the Serbs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is an extreme WP:POVFORK of articles like Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars and others. IMO there should be a speedy delete process for extreme POV articles whose WP:LEAD begins with The Demonization of the Serbs or the Satanization of the Serbs (Serbian: Сатанизација Срба) was systematic[1] planned and deliberate demonization of the Serbs was pursued in Western media as a propaganda technique and war strategy during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990's. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perhaps some material from the article could be moved to Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars or some other article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here intending to push deletion but you have multiple independent sources that discuss the demonization of Serbs during the 1990s. That's specifically separate from a general dislike of Serbs as a people or the general concept of propaganda during the latest Balkan war. I'd have a hard time claiming that the topic itself isn't notable. Merging this content into other articles, with the amount of source material available, is going to run into WP:UNDUE issues. I think we have no choice but to keep it, even if the topic seems to be partisan invective. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't discuss this subject, they are a collection of sources whose authors consider the treatment of Serbian leadership or Serbia in general in the Yugoslav Wars by western media unfair or just mention the term, but this is not a subject in itself. This is the definition of WP:POVFORK: the presentation of one particular view about a legitimate subject as a subject in itself by assuming that the particular POV - extreme POV in this case - is a neutral mode of presenting a subject, in this case Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This FPIF piece, this from Politico, and this piece in The Guardian all speak directly to this subject. I don't see original research here. The quotes provided in the other citations state that there was demonization, although I think you're making a stretch to say that they don't think the demonization, itself, isn't a subject. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles are opinion columns. One of which seems to pacify or almost justify crimes because of crimes from WWII (and leave out another group’s crimes from that era, interestingly). Disturbing.... From the same FPIF article “ They still have Srebrenica. But like the other inflated or untrue elements of the demonization process, they have it by cheating. There’s no doubt that there were executions at Srebrenica, but nothing like 8,000”. Sources like that definitely are questionable........Also on the same site there is a direct response from another editor FPIF Counter linked in the article. This is why scholarly sources are sought after. For a stronger topic. Two pov articles clashing doesn’t really do so. OyMosby (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat curious (actually), as I am not sure I understand your argument here. Is there a difference in the application of WP:UNDUE here and in Anti-Serb sentiment?--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that the Western media bias against the Serbs in the 1990s would entirely take over the article about propaganda in that war. The article about anti-Serb sentiment is about racial animus in a general sense across history, not the demonization to create the political consensus for various NATO interventions. I agree with Griboski that there should be aname change to this article but neither merge would be appropriate. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're saying presupposes that most Western media coverage about Serbia (not the Serb people) was illegitimate/biased in itself and/or based on fictional events which were used to "create the political consensus for NATO intervention". The belief that negative reporting about the state of Serbia was created to form a consensus about NATO intervention is shared by almost noone outside of Serbia and for the very few non-Serbian authors who espouse it, it usually goes hand in hand with conspiracy theories related Bosnian genocide denial. That article by politico is not related anyhow to the purported subject matter of this article. Also, it's a massive WP:UNDUE to accept the opinion of one Guardian piece as fact, when the points in that piece amount to a massive POV. Clark is a heavily criticized outlier in political commentary: RFERL: Clark has been making a name for himself as a leading apologist for Milosevic, for Serbian war crimes, and more recently for Putin's actions in Ukraine. But this time he has really gone too far. ---Maleschreiber (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - if there is some useful info with good sources move it to Anti-Serb sentiment or to Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars, and delete article.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Anti-Serb sentiment. An article covering essentially the same topic already exists.--Calthinus (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 1)This article is not WP:POVFORK and that's a bold statement in my book. I can agree that we should work more on the scope of the article. Alas, should the article be more focused and clear about some events? Yes. Does it need more sources? Yes. But why should we destroy something which has just started to develop? It is not unknown that the "interested parties" in the Yugoslav and some other wars used demonization (comparison to Nazis and what have you, which is/was quite moronic considering how many Serbs died from the hand of NG and their puppet states) in order to gather support from their voters and fellow politicians for several key moves during the same events. 3) There are multiple RS used and more can be found. Noam Chomsky has written about the topic.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a blatant and horrifically written POVFORK that pushes conspiracy theories and anti-Croat and anti-Bosnian sentiment in lieu of any content even remotely encyclopedic. If they are any useful sources here for Anti-Serb sentiment, they most certainly do not help with any content in the article. WP:TNT most certainly applies here even in the off chance this is a notable topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a blatant WP:POVFORK and per WP:TNT. It is full of cherry-picked sources and conspiracy theories. Any encyclopaedic content can be included in Anti-Serb sentiment, although that article is already highly POV and a WP:COATRACK for every single bad thing ever said or done to Serbs, whether there was anti-Serb thinking behind it or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the closing admin (it should be an admin in this case given the contentious nature of the subject) should be aware that several (but not all) of the editors weighing in here opposing the article deletion have well-established pro-Serb points of view. Their opposition needs to be weighed carefully based on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus, per policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The Anti-Serb sentiment article pertains to a general hatred of Serbs based on their identity. This article is about the role the Western media played during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, which some (reputable scholars) have observed as being biased against Serbs or contributing to a demonization of the people as a whole. That is a worthy topic on its own. If the article is to be salvaged, it should be re-written and toned down to make it more NPOV and less conspiratorial, with a different title. Alternatively, its good portions could be merged into other articles. You can't state things like "The Demonization of the Serbs or the Satanization of the Serbs was systematic, planned and deliberate" in Wikipedia's voice as if it were a fact, especially in the lead. --Griboski (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment- So, let me clear the air a bit: what you said, basically, is that "demonization of Serbs" is anti-Serbian sentiment only expressed, "specifically", during the war of the 90's?!-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, I never said that "demonization of Serbs" is a phenomenon unique to the 90s; only that the perceived demonization of Serbs by the media during that time is a notable issue in of itself. --Griboski (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This article refers to something very specific, not general Anti-Serb sentiment. The term refers to the extensive, over-the-top negative coverage of Serbia by the Western Press during the Yugoslav Wars. The term is widely covered by reliable sources, topic is notable. This seems more like just a case of WP:JDL by the nom. Khirurg (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as POVFORK and per WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is  propagandistic article that has no place in wikipedia. From article: "The Serbs were presented as Nazi-like aggressive expansionists who were most responsible for the Yugoslav wars, depicted as particularly genocidal and sometimes referred to as "beasts" and "monsters".  This article teaches us that the Serbs were actually flowers (in Yugoslav wars) and that in fact "demonization from western side" is blame for such a perception.  Mikola22 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per comments made by Peacemaker67 and Santasa99. Also, I couldn't find any other article on Wikipedia that deals with demonising one nation. Mhare (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Side comment about the sources: Many of them come from Serbian politicians and authors with a particular POV. See: Tomislav Nikolić, Žikica Jovanović, or the SLOBODAN MILOŠEVIĆ INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE Their POV coupled with that of some western authors is the core of this article, which presents a very minor viewpoint of a larger subject (Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars) in wikivoice as an actual subject with the title "demonization and satanization of the Serbs" and flat-out weird claims like Former Yugoslav minister of foreign affairs Živorad Jovanović estimated that satanization of the Serbs was particularly increased during Rambouillet negotiations. Editors should also be aware that part of the non-Serbian bibliography is used out of context in the article and is unrelated to the purported subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Devonian Wombat and Peacemaker67 give a good summary of the reasons why this article should be deleted. An article dedicated to the West-Serbia relations and public opinion during the wars or an article focused on how Western media did see Serbia at the time would be acceptable if written in a neutral way, without conspiracies and fringe stuff. If one wants to contribute to that topic, a new article should be created as this one is beyond the limits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (2)- I wouldn't mind, actually, if we keep the article, and start-over from scratch (WP:TNT), this time describing the phenomenon for what it is: a dramatic and costly instance of self-victimization. I am not sure if Peacemaker67 had that in mind when he mentioned WP:TNT in his "Delete" post, but for this idea to come into fruition editors would have to be willing to invest time and energy in writing it anew - it's just an idea. -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC) On second thought, this is unnecessary complication, and anything worth writing about the phenomenon of self-victimization in Serbian society can be included in any of the articles close to the subject. Sorry.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  14:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment OR, despite one's POV wishes, we can include that aspect ALONG with legitimate criticisms (some coming from RS) about the media's portrayal of Serbs during this period. Because I hadn't realized Benn, Chomsky, Herman, Taylor, Black, etc. were all Serbs engaging in self-victimization. --Griboski (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Chomsky appears to be questionable by some such as Christopher Hitchens (who was critical of multiple ex-Yugo governments of the time) stating “ My quarrel with Chomsky goes back to the Balkan wars of the 1990s, where he more or less openly represented the "Serbian Socialist Party" (actually the national-socialist and expansionist dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic) as the victim.” I don’t think anyone is saying Noam Chomsky is Serbian but rather is biased and dismissive of the Milosovic regime. It’s not POV automatically to not support a POV article.OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My POV remark was regarding the editor's confinement of the entire subject to mere self-victimization (as if it was entirely invited), thus dismissing any legit criticism of the depiction of Serbs in the Western media as put forth by some writers. It wasn't about support for the article. Chomsky's views can certainly be challenged, but his standing as a prominent scholar cannot. Hitchens was left-wing and became more conservative and a warhawk after 9/11. He had his own biases. --Griboski (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Hitchens’ criticism of Chomsky and Milošević’s regime tied to “more conservative” and “warhawk era post 9/11”? Not to mention he was very much critical of the right-wing Croatian government and flirtation with Ustashe symbology as well as the right-wing Serbian government and Chetnik friendly aspects in the 90s. Being a prominent scholar does not override issue with bias. Hitchens was critical of both regimes and Chomsky yet I did not find information that depicts Hitchens as biased about the war. Or that his views changed on the 90s. He was to the left and his views did not change on both the Croatian and Serbian governments’ behavior. OyMosby (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying that his views gradually began shifting during the 90s, partly as a result of the war, changing drastically after 9/11 and that opinions can change for the better or for worse. My point was that every political commentator is capable of being biased. Not that he was right or wrong about his views on Yugoslavia. You can find instances of Hitchens being labeled an Islamophobe for his criticism of Islam for example. The number of people criticizing a source doesn't tell you about the validity of their opinion on a particular stance either. You refute Chomsky as a source but seem to have a grandiose view of Hitchens because he criticized both Serbian and Croatian nationalism. I'm not suggesting Chomsky can't be biased or wrong on an issue, but that doesn't preclude his views from being included in an article as he is a reliably published academic. He is not the only individual cited regarding the demonization of Serbs. So I'm not sure what your point is. This discussion is veering off-topic. If you have a concern about a source, you should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for review. --Griboski (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed, Chomsky has come under sustained fire -- from the mainstream left and the mainstream right alike -- for many of his other stances as well, with accusations including Cambodian genocide denial  ( may take some interest in this one too ) and normalizing Hamas, a terrorist group with a genocidal ideoology. He is respected by a minority of the left-wing, and none of the right-wing. His works in philosophy and in linguistics (where he also is the centre of some unrelated controversies) are irrelevant to the serious POV issues with relying on him for anything political. Not that Chomsky is the only fringey intellectual this page relies on; in fact the page's very scope is fundamentally reliant on the POV of a very specific subset of the Western political spectrum, as I'll demonstrate below.--Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment POV aside, we have Demonizing the enemy which gives a solid basis for the article name. Considering that the article has some problems, which are solvable, even if gets deleted it gives us a great foundation for another article which would be more NPOV.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That article was created by the same editor and has many of the same problems like this article. If any editor subjected that article to editorial oversight, it would probably get nominated for deletion. The reality is that none of the content here could provide a standalone article because it is an extreme POV viewpoint about a subject turned into a standalone article. If you want to improve something, find a consensus with those involved on Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars, don't create any more POVFORKs.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn’t make sense as a separate article to begin with. The article Demonizing the enemy is a general article about demonization. It was raised that there aren’t Demonization of [insert country/ethnicity] articles. anti-blank sentiment articles already exist. Also in relation to the editor’s previous comment, it is “moronic” to label any ethic group or country of millions as “Nazis”. A tactic used by Milosovic as well despite lack of mention in the article in question. It is not “moronic” for their reasons however, as despite the fact that countless Serbs were killed during WWII (and I understand where they are coming from with this), there were Serbs who supported and collaborated with the Nazis as well. Milan Nedić and his Regime. On top of that Chetniks collaboration with Axis forces. A part of history often ignored or left out of discussion. And let’s pretend for arguments sake it never happened, a country that was victim of abuse doesn’t mean it cannot become an abuser in the future or that it negates the actions. That is a logical fallacy. Again I am talking in terms of this rationale. There is no reasonable logic to label a country or people as “Nazis”. Between this kind of talk and the POV article this seems more like PoV pushing on Wikipedia as if it were a blog than an encyclopedia. As the article implies some sort of “misunderstanding“ of the Milosovic regime who is depicted as simply vilified “for some reason”. Also “WP:JDL” is becoming a joke counter argument by some editors at this point. As it can go both ways. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Devonian Wombat, Mztourist and Peacemaker67 pretty much explain the fairly straightforward problems with such article. The topic is given undue weight. The topic is valid as propaganda against Serbs and Serbia absolutely occurred. Such as bigoted methods as labeling them as Nazis or depictions as monsters in media. And such topics would make sense in the anti-Serb Sentiment or Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars pages. Other countries or peoples that have been demonized follow this same route. This article seems intent on pushing a conspiracy in Wiki Voice as fact. As if the regime in Serbia and coverage of its actions and that of it’s support of Serb forces outside the country was simply Western demonization and conspiracy. Not the first time I’ve seen such theories pushed on the internet. All I have to say on the matter. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rearrange it into something like the Stereotypes of Jews article) or/and merge into Anti-Serb sentiment, Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars (in new sections on NATO propaganda and international coverage) and Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars. The article is far from perfect, but there are valuable reliable sources that should also be included in articles: Demonizing the enemy, Media bias, Media bias in the United States.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If such valuable info can be included elsewhere... how is this page necessary? There is a page like Stereotypes of Jews: Anti-Serb sentiment.--Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has already demonstrated the structural reliance of the page on a set of authors with obvious COI issues (like the prominent Serbian politician, Tomislav Nikolic, known for his role in the right-wing populist SPP... among others). Without them, though, we still end up with a page whose scope is shaped specifically by the views of adherents from a specific ideology that is rejected by the majority of the political spectrum. This includes Noam Chomsky, who I have discussed further above, but the portrayal of far-left/paleoconservative opinions as scholarly consensus is not limited to the use of his works in WIKIVOICE. Example citations include Edward S. Herman who is controversial on the left and on the right for trying to mitigate a then-ongoing genocide in Cambodia, Carl Boggs' Imperial Delusions: American Militarism and Endless War, Robert W. Merry's Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition, and Michel Collon. The latter might just be the most dubious of all: his tirades on Israel veered so far into what is deemed anti-Semitic that he was disinvited to the Beirut Francophone Book Fair (you know, Lebanon). He then sued for defamation, and the court threw out his case as "groundless". He also stands accused of falsifications , Hamas normalization, spreading conspiracy theories , genocide denial , and unethical "advocating for Bashar al-Assad".
 * To be clear, I am not saying we can never cite people with fringe views, what I am saying is that we cannot have a page whose scope is shaped by their views, I am illustrating how it is the very definition of WP:POVFORK. That's not an NPOV issue that can be solved by improving the page, because any discussion of the actions of the Serbian government that triggered the alleged "satanization" is either omitted or at best crammed into a small background subsection (the scope would lead to predictable accusations of WP:COATRACK were any balance to be added). This page is exactly like what a page Demonization of Hamas would look like if it were created (using, no surprise, likely the same authors). --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It is very disturbing to compare the fundamentalist militant organization and one whole ethnic group. I understood that the article just describes such examples... how is this page necessary? There is a page like Stereotypes of Jews: Anti-Serb sentiment. But there are also Antisemitism and Stereotypes of Jews pages. Ok, it's not necessary, but the content should be incorporated into other articles. I said keep or/and merge.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think they are trying to compare them to Milosovic’s regime not the Serb ethnic group itself. As the article mainly deals with Serbia as a country and the government. So making this as an example of what “the article just describes” would be incorrect. Again I agree with merging relevant and RS contents to relevant pages as you said earlier. In proper npov as well. Not almost depicting anyone as bigoted for criticism of a regime’s actions as attacking an ethnic group that regime is said to serve. Which is what the article comes across like now. Something used throughout history by countries and governments to deflect criticism or history. And hence problematic when Wikipedia will appear to be used as a tool to carry such actions forth.OyMosby (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed the proper comparison is between the Hamas regime and Milosevic regime. You've stumbled on the fact that indeed my comparison was inadequate. The proper comparison might indeed be a page that portrays criticism of Hamas as racism against Palestinians which is even more WP:POVFORK. Stereotypes of Jews is a subset of Anti-Semitism with a significant bibliography. An analogous page for Serbs, sources-willing, would not make the POV allegation that a specific period of media coverage was in fact a massive racist conspiracy spanning from German to American media and PR firms, but instead could discuss derogatory stereotypes of Serbs. For example, I would absolutely support a page that called out anyone who claimed that Serbs are somehow uniquely prone to genocide -- the whole world has seen that Germans elected Nazis but now have a stable democracy that is at the forefront of defending human rights, and prominent Holocaust scholars have called out blaming Nazism on some sort of German essence is flat out anti-German racism. But this is not that page. This is a POVFORK that could nearly be considered an attack page.--Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, ethnic slurs and attacks would go an “anti-blank sentiment” page as is already the way such pages function. I believe the Anti-German Sentiment page does just that for demonizing ethnic groups on the actions of those within the ethnic group. OyMosby (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For me the key is sourcing of the framing. Sourcing establishes Stereotypes of Jews as a notable article. If WEBDuB is right and there is non-fringe RS that establish such for a specific sort of "demonization" of Serbs, then sure. But that's an "if". Another big difference is that there is much scholarship on anti-Semitism. --Calthinus (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Chomsky & Herman. Calthinus, from the Cambodian genocide article: "Scholars and historians have varying opinions on whether the persecution and killings under the hands of the Khmer Rouge should be considered genocide. This is because the earlier scholarship which came about right after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979 had claimed that the victims could have been killed due to the circumstances they were in." In this interview, Chomsky explains that the book was written based on information available at the time and they made a conscious effort to remain objective, due to the reliability of some sources.1 For his part at least, he doesn't dispute the interviewer's repeated genocide characterization.


 * I agree that some of Chomsky and Herman's views (particularly on Srebrenica & Israel for example) are at the very least controversial. Your above link to the website "capx" however also contains links on the page to inflammatory and potentially libelous statements such as "Edward Herman was a racist, misogynistic fraudster" by that same author. Chomsky and Herman's works on the media such as Manufacturing Consent are standard reading material in Political Science, Sociology and Media/Communications Studies courses in Universities. If you're looking for exclusion of their opinions on topics such as these because of "other stuff", you'll find resistance. I agree about the unreliability of most sources in this article though, particularly the Serbian ones. --Griboski (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm just pointing out the controversy; those two men have thrown around some accusations of their peers being involved in imperialist war machines, some have thrown accusations back at them. And I have made it very clear, bolded in my full statement below, that I am not . The issue here is that we have a page framed by their views, not that it includes them. But to be fair you do somewhat acknowledge this in your argument that the page should be renamed (and thus reframed). I just don't think you go far enough. --Calthinus (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did see your comment in bold above, but just wanted to make sure; so I appreciate the clarification. Indeed, I agree with the gist of what you and some other delete voters are expressing. I just don't feel strongly enough to say that the entire article should be deleted as parts of it are useful for entry into a re-worked version or merged to other articles. --Griboski (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would propose a couple of options. One, creating a general article about what most of this article is alluding to, but written in a NPOV style. Something like Western media coverage of the Yugoslav Wars. It could give a general overview of the subject, major events and include a section on criticism coming from certain intellectuals/public figures on portrayal of Serbs along with counter-opinions from scholars like Ramet and Hoare challenging this view. The other would be to simply add a "Western media" section in the Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars page. --Griboski (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The second option seems best. As it’s how all participants involved in the Yugoslav Wars and their depiction in various medias are placed. Merging into Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars. It would also provide a wider view of the whole topic to readers. OyMosby (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm fine with adding "Western media" to "Propaganda during..." if and only if there are non-fringey sources that explicitly call it propaganda, which I have not yet seen. There are plenty of places that actually useful material can be placed. But most of this page consists of citing fringe voices (Michel Collon etc) and politicians (Nikolic), and then stating their theses in WP:WIKIVOICE, so it isn't really useful for the most part anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fine with inclusion of "Western media" aspect into "Propaganda" article too, and just like Calthinus, I will follow development there with great sense of urgency, maybe even zeal, because I won't sit idle and watch some kind of switcheroo unfolding, with moving nonsense from here to there.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is enough RS to warrant an article under this specific title.Alexikoua (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete extreme FORK, totally uncyclopedic.--Fa alk (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) - Sockpuppet of User:Albanian Historian
 * Delete, clearly a POV fork, and even if it could be established as a potentially legitimate separate topic, the current article is so ridiculously POV-driven it would be case of "purge and start over" per WP:NUKEIT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:SUBPOV, the title clearly indicates that its subject is the point-of-view. There is scholarly consensus that it exists. It has received significant coverage in an ocean of reliable sources that are independent of the legitimate article subject . I think that all contradictory views are given due weight in this article and do not see any need to delete it and start it over. The right approach to resolve eventual side issues is not deletion, but article improvement following wikipedia policies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't SUBPOV. There's no "pov dispute" in a subject identifies as "demonization/satanization". What you've written is an extreme POV FORK with many abuses in terms of how bibliography is used. there's almost double !delete (11), than !keep (6) comments, but I agree with your comment. Even with such a majority of !delete, the closing admin should be aware about the context of almost all the !keep comments.-Maleschreiber (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect calculation. Many editors recognize this article is a potentially legitimate separate topic and based their delete !votes on TNT essay (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over). That would be wrong approach to resolving any eventual side issues. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I won't get into interpreting what other editors meant to say with their !delete comments and you should neither. Let the procedure work itself out.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have several RS provided, there is no doubt that we can get more.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Russian sources should be included to know who is behind the propaganda, there is a Serbian proverb: Everyone is guilty, only a Serb never .... so the war did not happen
 * Hello IP, please don't forget to sign, and do tell us how exactly you came upon this discussion... --Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * is there any way to find out who is the editor behind the IP?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably there is if you dig enough, but please do not do so under any circumstances, as WP:OUTING is a really, really bad thing to do as you have no way of knowing just how damaging it could be to the real life person. Fyi. --Calthinus (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the editor's username not his RL identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I have no doubt that the comment was made in good faith, don't worry. Just pointing out that if that is revealed, then suddenly a fairly precise geological location is publicly available for the user, whoever it is, in question, hence it is not great. I trust the closer will have the proper judgment to discount !votes with no policy based arguments from IPs. --Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maleschreiber and Calthinus, I have a feeling that this person is inexperienced with inner workings of Wikipedia, and with not so good knowledge of English, I doubt person has an account and the username at all. I also see contradiction between his vote "Keep" and rest of his comment, and rest of his contribution under this IP, for that matter. He/she obviously confused and misunderstood the title - I bet he/she believes that this article is trying to revel Serbian propaganda and demonization of everyone else by Serbian prop, that deletion proposal is, say, in defense of Serbian rep, and he/she trying to prevent that. Or it could be even simpler, it could be that he/she simply copy pasted wrong voting word+markup, instead "delete" he/she copied "keep" and forgot it together with signature.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I follow the Antidiscriminator's work, so I decided to take part in this discussion. There are multiple sources that support the notability. It seems to me that the topic crosses the general notability guideline. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: You do realise we don't have any other article named Demonization of (insert ethnicity/people/nation). C'mon, if there is no demonization of Germans or Arabs... ugh, I can't go on. Nobody here is claiming there was no anti-Serb sentiment, its just that many of the things in this article belonge there, in the article anti-Serb sentiment. Mhare (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:  In normal circumstances an article about "demonization and satanization" would get speedy deleted, but what we're dealing with here is a large voting campaign IMO. Basically, we have users from Serbian wikipedia with little involvement otherwise in English wikipedia coming here to increase the !keep comments with no interest in addressing any of the very severe problems of the article. I'd also like to have a sockpuppet investigation to find out who is the editor behind the IP !vote. The best way to deal with all these aspects is for the community to truly engage with this discussion instead of allowing it to become a "vote race" for editors who try to game the system by unlogging and then commenting as IPs or editors with less than 20 edits in English wikipedia for the entirety of 2020. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. More sorting lists will be notified as well as more appropriate noticeboards. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the article is getting worse and worse. The creator now is adding Serbian tabloid articles about how...Hollywood "demonized" the Serbs and how that in turn inspired...the Christchurch mosque shootings. Where does this end?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t even know what to say to such misinformation. Regardless this is getting of topic and should be taken to the article’s talk page, not here. OyMosby (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Novosti is not that notable but dr Vladimir Vuletić, a professor at the University of Belgrade (which is far better than most, if not all, universities on the Balkans) and published author is RS and knows what he is talking about. Another things, somebody obviously did not understand the material.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Vuletić is professor at the University of Belgrade, it doesn't make him automatically RS - but it says quite a lot about academic structures in the Balkans. No, I'm not going to treat as something worthy of debate, WP:FRINGE theories. To the reader who may not know the history of Večernje novosti, which published Vuletić's piece: this is a Serbian newspaper which during the Yugoslav Wars promoted the worst kind of pro-Milošević war propaganda. It is famous in the Balkans for editing a 1888 painting to make it seem as an actual photograph which depicted a war crime supposedly committed by Bosniaks. This is the kind of bibliography that is being put forward in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like all your complaints about sources should have been brought up on the article's talk page. Rather than address your concerns and fix the article, you now run the risk of this AfD failing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out the sort of bibliography that is being used in the article to refute the claim that its problem has to do "just" with some POV parts. This is an extreme POVFORK which is getting worse and worse. There's nothing else to address here other than that. IP "voting" etc. doesn't affect consensus. Consensus isn't measured in terms of counting "votes" (although there is a !delete majority), but on the basis of the arguments put forward. Best.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ” a professor at the University of Belgrade (which is far better than most, if not all, universities on the Balkans)” Multiple Balkan universities are in the top 500 list of world universities. Greece alone as a few very high up above all with Universities of Belgrade and Split and Zagreb included. This is just come across as a needles and false jab. OyMosby (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to judge... What I have previously stated is a cold fact, regardless of anyone's take on it. Outside, in the real world, university professors from the Balkans (in general) often have to take 1 or 2 more jobs (which are not always that good) in order to provide for their family.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said University of Belgrade is far better than most if not all others in the Balkans. Rankings show Greece to be the top. And both Serbian and Croatian universities making top 500 in the world. These are verifiable facts. There was no talk of pay. It implies as if all other Balkan universities are less credible. Perhaps not your intention. OyMosby (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on who is doing the list and on which parameters. There is no doubt that Greeks are ranked high up, as well. That is only your impression, which is off-topic and not my point.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same could be said about your claim of UoB being the best of the Balkans. Multiple lists disprove what you said. Not just my impression. Greece ranks much higher than any of the ex-Yugo countries in fact .Slovenia tops the exYugos. You can look this up on any worldwide ranking sites. Either way much of the Unis in the Balkans are credible sources of information by their professors.OyMosby (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * and that edit of Sadko seems to have modified the previous comment made by OyMosby. Take a look at it as it seems that you two had a technical edit conflict or sth similar. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time, it happens. Fixed, do double check @OyMosby.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s because we were editing dame time. No worries. OyMosby (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries Sadko. Wiki's software is not perfect. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - POVFORK. Chris Troutman's argument has some merit and RSs have clearly paid some attention to the image of Serbia during the 90s onwards. However, I still think the material is better located along with its historical background (Anti-Serb sentiment) and context (Propaganda during the Yugoslav Wars). I'm not convinced it'll inevitably end up being undue; a lot of the sources basically just reiterate the same points. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant POVFORK, the content is better suited in the Anti-Serb sentiment article. N.Hoxha (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delelte. Per above (POVFORK, POVTITLE, UNDUE, FRINGE, etc.). I don't have that much to add, other than suggesting an ArbCom look into this, and impose topic bans where necessary. I fear that this might only be the tip of the iceberg. Eisfbnore  (会話) 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it was created by an editor (User:Antidiskriminator) who previously served a long TBAN on 20th/21st C Serb topics imposed at ANI. See TBAN, six-month appeal, year appeal, and ban lifted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that a procedure like the one you linked to should be followed and it should be filed by someone who has had contact with Ant. over the past few years, thus has a better overview of this editor's behavior.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is most definitely not the place for discussions such as the one you are having. It may be interpreted in several ways, some of which are not that good. Battleground mentality and deals to "get someone" (you keep disagreeing with) should have no place on Wikipedia.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is a near textbook example of POVFORK. I don't think I've ever seen an article with more blatantly biased prose than this one. Swordman97  talk to me  00:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.