Talk:SANU Memorandum

Untitled

Estavisti: your attempts at cleaning up the article were I think over-aggressive. One of your requests for a citation was rendered unnecessary by the paragraph laying out the varied ideas and focuses of the authors. You removed a mundane reference to it being considered nationalistic, which it was, universally. There is no point of view problem in stating a fact, and it is not a fact that requires any particular citation. I'm fine with some of your edits, but the ones I edited back were sort of odd. Why demand citations for the obvious? Why cut reference to the Memorandum's reputation as a nationalist document? Profnjm 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The interesting resemblance between the SANU Memorandum and Draza Mihailovic Seven Instructions

Here are them:

“ The mission of our units is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the King Peter II;
2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Backa;
3. The struggle for the incorporation into our social structure of those non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorica, Istria, and Kaernten), as well as Bulgaria and Northern Albania with Shkodra;
4. The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;
5. The creation of direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Bosniak population from Sandzak, and the Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6. The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;
7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

”

Even more interesting resemblance between the SANU Memorandum and todays reality

Almost everything was predicted correct. Serbs were ethnically cleaned out of Croatia (one of the ethnically cleanest states of Europe), Kosovo...

Must have been some clever people those SANU - guys... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.203.235 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Serbs brought upon themselves their neighbours' and ultimately the civilized nations' military reactions, and left by their own accord: Croatia in August 1995 and Kosova in June 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.135.150 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

SANU Memorandum & Seven Instructions

It seems to me a very big strech to compare the SANU Memorandum and the Seven Instructions. Paperoverman (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The crucial difference is that Seven Instructions describe in no uncertain terms what would today be described as a "criminal endeavor". The Memorandum falls short of that. Such comparisons and parallels are WP:OR anyway when they are not backed up by reliable sources. GregorB (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dobrica Cosic

This article contains contradictory references to Cosic as being 1) not on the committee that wrote the Memorandum and 2) one of its writers. This needs resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.53 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Spurious reasons for removing sourced content

I'm amazed that 23 editor used the lack of a page number in a ref as an excuse to remove some relevant, sourced content. It's in the book. Have you read it? It's not the first time you've tried this excuse; how long should this tendentious editing be tolerated? bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How hard is it (really?) to provide a page number so that something can be verified? Also, is Malcolm a lawyer by any chance? 23 editor (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm is a reliable source on the history of Kosovo, of course. Please stop making up spurious reasons to remove sourced content - I notice you take a much more relaxed approach to sourcing if it can push articles in the other direction. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob, if you read it, how hard is then to add a page? Until then, its really unsourced and should be out. FkpCascais (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: When 23 editor says "It's not sourced if there is no page number", that is not true. It's wrong. It's a lie. The content is sourced and verifiable. It is unfortunate, but not the first time, that you fall for such lies just because they allow sourced content to be manipulated to fit a Serb nationalist fantasy of Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

3 pages for one simple statement? FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in depth. Have you read this reliable source, or the 1903 constitution, yet? I imagine it would be helpful to read the sources before drawing big conclusions about constitutional history. A few months ago I asked if you'd found any evidence of a Grand National Assembly to annex Kosovo; have you found any source yet? bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

bobrayner your blatant POV pushing is becoming unacceptable. What makes Noel Malcom a credible and unbiased source according to you? Are his theories supported by other academics/historians? Clearly his views are not accepted as fact as you like to portray. Buttons (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm citing a reliable source. You are systematically removing reliably-sourced content. Apparenty it's not "fact" because you remove it because it's not fact because... tiresome circular reasoning and pov-pushing. Sooner or later I will bring more articles in the Balkans in line with what reliable sources say; your kneejerk reverts will postpone that, rather than cancelling it. I had started making progress again after the last string of kneejerk reverts was removed. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed here. Buttons (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have and its a blatant piece of biased literature from a "historian" with an agenda. Malcolm is better suited to writing fiction. Buttons (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you need to resort to angry attacks on sources that don't fit your political beliefs, that's your loss; but articles will reflect what reliable sources say, as soon as your finger is pried off the "revert" button bobrayner (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case, Malcolm is certainly no authority when it comes to international/constitutional law. He is a historian and journalist, (his connections with Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nice sure did get him far) and shouldn't be taken as a lawyer. If he has something original to say, his statement should be attributed inline in all Wikipedia articles for the sake of avoiding undue weight to the ideas of one individual. 23 editor (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with 23 editor. In Malcolms publications one can find numerous exeptional claims, even mistakes. There is a reason why he is by far the most loved author of editors like Bobrayner who´s assumed goal is "not to allow Serbian nationalist phantasy". I see as appropriate to cite Malcolm each time he makes an exeptional claim. FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I've found Malcolm's book on Bosnia somewhat useful, however I could not help but notice how little he had to say on key parts of Bosnian history (he wasn't detailed enough to my liking). Nevertheless, arguments about the 1903 Serbian constitution ought to be presented inline to Malcolm, not in Wikipedia's voice. Even when other authors make reference to the "1903 Serbian constitution argument" they clearly state "Noel Malcolm argues..." as can be seen Kristen P. Williams "Despite Nationalist Conflicts: Theory and Practice of Maintaining World Peace" p. 148. 23 editor (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating Propaganda

This article is not serious. And most problematic part is the "Memorandum points", becasue you let them without any comment, it agree with this poinit, and let people think that those points are facts. There is no information, that those points are all not true. --185.46.214.75 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)