Talk:Serbian Radical Party/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

NPOV

This text added at the end of the page detracts from the otherwise NPOV quality of the article: --fredericknoronha 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed. // Laughing Man 17:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Ultra left? They are totally opposite of that, I'd label them as an far right party. Sideshow Bob 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. AFAIK that's why most people (including me till 3 months ago) make that mistake. They are completely the leftist point, centering around the unemployed, the pensioners, the peasants and generally "the weak". They want to through populism one day became the sole one party that will rule Serbia and promise to return the old days, fiercely opposing Capitalism (totally Socialist). The dental care does not exist in Serbia, they wanna return it. They want to deal with barely financed Health care and promise that Universities in Serbia will also again be financed almost solely by the government. They oppose any privatization to foreigners and say that actions can be only sold to Serbs, but with more than 50% of everything owned by the state (i.e. the Serbian Radical Party) to maintain state control.

You can find all this in their program. --PaxEquilibrium 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Populism is a trait of most parties aiming to win votes, it is not necessarily linked to any ideology. By your rationale, Croatian Party of Rights is also leftist, because they advocate social and health programs, family benefits etc. We both know they aren't. The distinction between left and right is not set in stone and cannot be equally applied to all countries. Rosier (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian radical party is a pro-russian party with ties to Vladimir Zhirinovsky but also to fascists like Le Pen(France).--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascistc?!

The Serbian Radical Party is in no way fascist, nor neofascist for that part. See, you can't just make an eticett with fascist written on it, and then put it on the forehead on someone. Because the SRS has nothing in its party program that in any way can link it to a fascistic ideology. They are not opposett to democracy, and they are not for kollektivisam in any shape or form for that matter. You might as well say that de Gaulle was a fascist, because if anyone is nationalistic it sertainly doesen't mean that he is fascistic.

So untill someone comes up with anything that underlines that the SRS truely is a fascist paarty, I say we should remove it from the article, and not spread lied information om Wikipedia.

Updates are needed for the 2008 Serbian presidential elections and the issue of Kosovo's status after Feb. 17, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.9.199 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist?

Can anyone please explain to me what ultra-nationalist means and how it is different from nationalist, other than it being propaganda used to make the party in question sound more extremist? Ultra-nationalist even links to the wikipedia page on nationalism, so what is ultra-nationalism? Thank you. --24.226.31.126 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok since there is no response I am changing it to nationalist as it should be. --139.57.226.49 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

i see that "nationalist" has been changed back to "ultra-nationalist" with a washington post article as a reference [1]. can someone confirm that the article is not readable because of an advertisement blocking the right part of the text? as i am not able to see the whole text in firefox nor in chrome. AkaiHoshi (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Greater" Serbia?

Vojislav Seselj, modern creator of "VELIKA SRBIJA" "GREAT SERBIA" explains the concept of this ideology in his trial which can be viewed on this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617# and as far as linguistics is concerned; the entire West have a common misconception as to the name of this ideology: Great Britain, in Serbian is "Velika Britanija", Great Serbia is "Velika Srbija". Using the term "Greater" is in effect propaganda implying EXPANSIVE/IMPERIALIST tendencies of the ideology. The ideology is based on informing Serbian populations of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Athiest religions that they are Serbs who under pressure through hundreds of years of Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian and Vatican influence have either forced or enticed them to convert religion, and then further capitalised upon that by either forcing/enticing them to identify themselves on the basis of their religion as different nationalities. Religion does not change nationality. That is the core, basic focus of the concept of "Velika Srbija". Watch that video and understand that Velika Srbija is NOT an expansive ideology, looking to "invade" or "ethnically cleanse" other nationalities but to nationaly ENLIGHTEN them and prove to those Serbs of different religions that foreigners made them falsely identify themselves. I'll be making more fixes but for the time being the name of this article and throught the article MUST be changed to Great Serbia, not "Greater" Serbia. Watch the video. Australianhistorian (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serbian Radical Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Review by WP:GA? criteria:

Seems well-written (although the first entry of SRS outside the lead should ahve the party name, WP:OVERLINK doesnt apply to differences/reptitions in lead and body). Also the history seems to be the bulk of the rticle (in which case it could be a "History of..."). Id suggest somehow breaking up the sections further,. Perhaps the last 2 subsection which can come after idology. (certainly the election prose can go with the results table) Lead is good, but do we need the details after "currently border Serbia – all former federal republics of Yugoslavia..." in the first apra. Also need to clarify "Šešelj and other hardliners^[who?] continued to oppose" perhaps write his faction as int he other chap. "(Serbs generally being strongly anti-german), and the " German needs caps and the comma can go. Also need to differentiate ebtween general background and early years as it seems similar. alternatively you can remove the background section and clump into history OR make background a seperate section before history altogether. Wouldnt "draconoic laws" be a bit pov? Surely one-side doesnt think so. "During the Yugoslav Wars some...forces such as the White Eagles" para should be moved up chronologically and the milosevic issue can be merged with the end of the alst para about his ouster.
Very well sourced except dfor "Leadership" and election results (for the 2 redlinked pres elections). Also the Pribićević abnd Bugajski sources would be better with the full title in the first occurence. (i understand its in further readings, but either move that to the refs or move further readings above)(
Any prose on its current status?
doesnt change significantly day to ady (except that it went through a recent revamp), neutral, images (although 1-2 in other lower sections wouldnt hurt). Cant you also add the politics of serbia template (or link from the first occurence of serbian politics?). And wikilink for "radical nationalist "

Also did you post the SRS response on the Libyan war page as both pertinent and getting broader views?
And also this is by no mean a requirement, you could translate the pertinent Serbian sources in quotes in the refs.
Article is also at least C-class at the moment.
Also checklinks theres 1 dead link and some other stuff to correct.
And this [2]

I have now edited the article according to most of what you write here, that which was intelligible at least (your writing here is sometimes so poor and messy I can simply not understand what you mean). Otherwise I think the election tables are comprehensible enough for their own section (would be hard to imagine how it could be merged with prose), and a "Serbian politics" link is already included in the main infobox. – Bellatores (t.) 12:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-review: first ref is not complete. what is Pribićević's first name? or does he go by one name? Also since the book is not clickable with a link can the relevant passage be quoted?

The first mention of SRS outside the lead needs the whole name with SRS in brackets. Its true that the election section is good enough (and now sourced, which is good) but theres no harm in adding "Opposition and electoral success" there. Prose is generally preferred to tables.

also sources for "Leadership" section?

Seems good to go otherwise.Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Please look at WP:SFN. The supposed need to give the full information in the short references, which is already in the bibliography section, is with all due respect something you have just made up. A link to the book can also be found in the bibliography section. 2) I have now included "(SRS)". 3) I question the need to include prose in the table-sections, which I have not needed with any of "my" other GAs. I think it is best to include it in the history-section, so that the reader also get the historical context. I don't really see the value of splitting up the section, or to just write some faux prose. 4) Is there any particular reason to re-source what one can already find in the prose under History? – Bellatores (t.) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesnt mean changes are inherently wrong. the more sources the merrier. At any rate, its not off the top of my head, in academia thats how sources work.

~~Dont see why his first name could not be added as all other info is there. (and the other fellows full name)~~

point 4: a "ref name" couldnt hurt. other than that were all ready. ~~Though also ref 22 is better suited to Šešelj's page.~~

And Nikolić deputy leadership is mentioned twice in the same section "Foundation and early years" and theres no source at all about Dragan Todorović. (Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

Ok. You have now edited the article so much that I would like to have a second opinion on these issues. My last version of the article was here; [3], until you did some major edits to the current version [4], which I all in all find rather problematic. – Bellatores (t.) 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What is problematic? we can discuss that.

Im okay with the 3O

Incidentally the last point above doesnt seem controversial enough. you can change that.(Lihaas (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)).

I strongly oppose the edit that just removed a large chunk of text from the history-section and inserted it in the "Electoral performance" section. I also oppose the insertion of the Politics of Serbia template; there has for a long time been concensus to not include these in articles about political parties. (I think it was agreed on somewhere actually, but I don't recall where/when.) A source for Dragan Todorović should not be a problem to find though. – Bellatores (t.) 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

good on the latter. ill remove the gtemplate. but still think prose on an empty section is good. lets wait for 3OLihaas (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have now added prose with sources on Todorović. Also made some minor changes to reflect what sources says on the nature of his acting leadership. – Bellatores (t.) 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems ready for GA to me. Are you awaiting the 3O or are you set as is?Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you want to resolve the issue of you moving the particular section, but I continue to disagree with it. I still don't see the value of blowing a wide whole in the history-section of the party, simply for the purpose of using it as landfill in the electoral performance section. The style of the prose itself is totally misplaced for "electoral performance" (it includes information which is irrelevant for such a section, and much more suited for the history-section). – Bellatores (t.) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats more for the talk page than here, we can try for another opinion. Alternatively, nothing to say a GA cant be edited later with consensus as long as there isnt an edit war. Your choise which of the two paths to try as its your nom,.Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is only you I must have consensus with, so I don't see the purpose of passing it as GA and then starting up a discussion right afterwards. I have made my case on the issue in question, and have nothing more to add to it; as far as I am concerned it is you who fail to make up a case for moving the section to an inappropriate place. It was good as it was, and you made an unnecessary edit. I don't intend to "stop" you from writing something there of course, but the cheap act of moving an unrelated section there just for adding "prose" is totally misguided. – Bellatores (t.) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

firstly, its not my fault (not resorting to NPA blames would help you). it was in the right, the split is 1-1 and someone needs to break the conesensus logjam. likewise i dont have any further morves as much as yoyu, so if its my fault its your fault too that were split. I digress hat it was good as it was, it wasnt.! "cheap act" is your opinion, please keep that out of moving forward, you dont atttack other edits/editors, you should work towards discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)).

Spare me of this evasive talk. If you think the article is a GA now, then approve it. You are the reviewer. – Bellatores (t.) 11:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly learn to be WP:CIVIL (theres a way to say things) rather than NPA accusations that are not AGF.

Secondly, I wsa asking what you think because its you r nomination. we work collobaratively on WP.(Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)).

I apologize for being rather irratable here, but it is only because I have stated repeatedly my position on the particular issue. I still think the paragraphs fit poorly in the section on election results, and I would like very much to move them back where they belong. It is only my respect for Wikipedia collaboration that stops me from being bold here and just do it myself, because I still seek to have consensus with you. It would be nice if you could reconsider your position, and consider that I have used the same "format" for this in all the five other political party GAs I have created, without the question of prose in the election table section ever being raised. – Bellatores (t.) 19:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Backround

I don't see the relevance of this section with the rest of the article. There's no relation between the SRS and the People's Radical Party, besides the similar name. If there are no objections, I will remove this section. Buttons (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Far right?

Is there a reliable source for the allegation that the SRP is "far right"? It may be, I have no idea. Though it cannot be both "conservative" and "far right", as these are diametrically opposed ideologies.203.80.61.102 (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serbian Radical Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Nemanja Šarović Crop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Political position

Should the Serbian Radical Party be described as "right-wing to far-right" or "far-right"? --Vacant0 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources for right-wing: 1, 2

Sources for far-right: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Right-wing to far-right. Far-right is connoted and is very infamous, it serves to discredit political opponents. "Far-right alone" should be reserved only for neofascist parties and certain small hooligan groups, except if there are no sources for the nationalist party in question. --Martopa (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
far-right, as majority of sources including Far-Right Politics in Europe, page 2. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
far-right, per reliable sources and above Rexh17 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Right-wing to far-right : This is the party from which Aleksandar Vučić's Serbian Progressive Party emerged. It historically includes a more liberal wing.--Manodestina (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
far-right there's no way SRS is more moderate than Vox, AfD or National Rally which are all labelled just "far-right" Braganza (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Manodestina: If a moderate party splits from a certain party, then that party (after the split) is not necessarily moderate itself Braganza (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing to far-right. Vox is labelled right-wing to far-right in its article, contrary to what Braganza says. For AfD, Davide King, an Italian user, makes bold changes on several articles for few days and remove the "right-wing" label (a behaviour that annoy some other users). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.126.117 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
two things, Vox was far-right until 27th of September & why did you say that "You vote after the closure of the RfC (it expires on 24 October 2021)" but still votes here? Braganza (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Far-right While it is true that SNS emerged from SRS, that moderate wing is no longer part of the party, having split off. The modern SRS party is far-right, as supported by the sources. The discussion of the moderate wing that used to be part of the party should be in the article body, not in the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Ultranationalist per sources that most often describe it as ultranationalist (when they are being precise), which is one way of being far-right -- every ultranationalist party is a far-right party. It should probably only be described as ultranationalist, because describing it as "far-right ultranationalist" means using both the umbrella-term attribute and the more specific attribute at the same time, which is superfluous. Stacking the general and the specific to be more persuasive or to make sure the point will be carried across to those readers who are only familiar with the broader term is a characteristic of WP:NEWSSTYLE. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Right-wing to far-right to reflect all points of views, even those which are in a minority, per NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.38.117 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)