This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Novi Plamen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I discover with some surprise that my name (David Graeber) is listed as an editor for this journal. This is completely untrue. I am quite sure that Chomsky and Albert have nothing to do with it as well. I think this is some sort of scam.
'Well, how do you then explain the fact that Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors?! This is a shameless accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.100.214 ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked up the old version and it listed David Graeber as a member of Advisory Board, not as an editor. Yamabushi1981 ( talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, maybe it did - but don't you think I would know if I'm the editorial board or not? It's pretty comical that I am telling you, myself, that I'm not on the board, I have never had any contact with these people, and every time I try to take my name off someone puts it back again. Do I have to threaten legal action?
David Graeber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.141.2 ( talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As already mentioned, Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors and Albert's well-known and close colleagues...So I doubt the authenticity of the preceeding comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.101.198 ( talk) 00:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unedited contributors include Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montengerin writers, so the only obvious designation for the language used in the magazine would be Serbo-Croatian, and not these neo-nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" etc. -- ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Stambuk, these people write in their respective national languages (as they are presently defined), so unless you can prove they are writing in "Serbo-Croatian", please stop these and other (tendentious) edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.95.109 ( talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There you go again. Stop vandalising the article, you are well aware it is politically murderous for a magazine in Croatia to be labelled as writing in "Serbo-Croatian" due to nationalist concerns, and it is incorrect, since people in it write in their specific national languages. Your political bias is obvious - for instance - in your edits on the article about Miroslav Krleza, where you fought against the formulation that "he was proclaimed as the greatest Yugoslav writer in the 20th century", although it is common knowledge that he was, and this fact does not necessarily imply such a classification is correct. Now you impute the very things to Novi Plamen which you vehemently rejected in a situation when they were actually applicable/authentic (in the Krleza article). Stop with these political manipulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no specific language identification in the magazine, including no specific identification for "Serbo-Croatian". I tend to agree it might be necessary to add Serbian and Bosnian as languages used in the magazine, but not "Serbo-Croatian", especially since this term isn't used any more to denote languages used in the Western Balkans. Regarding Krleza, you again fail to distinguish the fact he was proclaimed the greatest Yugoslav writer, irrespective of the validity of this classification. As it stands, that article fails to establish the regional importance and - more importantly - regional supremacy of Krleza's literary production, whose literary quality and importance transcends small Croatia and is truly international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 ( talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Matica hrvatska is beside the point here. Current mainstream classifications for these languages are "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Bosnian", definitely not Serbo-Croat. Wikipedia functions on the basis of established scientific norms, not fringe theories. Regarding Krleza, I was just making a claim about Krleza's perception, we're discussing different things. By the way, Krleza is in many ways universal, and definitely a regional writer as well, don't narrow him down, he would be turning in his grave if he knew you were narrowly presenting him as a "Croatian" writer, he was a cosmopolitan humanist first and foremost.
Ok, so why don't you try changing the language designations for the Croatian Globus magazine for instance, or hundreds and hundreds of other magazines, newspapers etc. in the region, none of which are characterised as "Serbo-Croatian"? If 99% of people consider it to be the same language (do please show me where you got this "fact"), why is then this designation so rare??? Croatian is the official language of Croatia (and Serbian is the official language of Serbia), not Serbo-Croat. Your political intentions against Novi Plamen are made clear by your ludicrous characterisation of Novi Plamen as a "Yugoslav magazine", which is a despicable attempt to marginalise the magazine. Stop with your politically inspired sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.201.69 ( talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article has been substantially expanded, with quite numerous mainstream newspaper and TV sources, including references to some TV shows which directly discuss the journal, as well as several laudatory articles devoted to the journal and published in a leading Croatian and Serbian daily newspaper.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Novi Plamen. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Novi Plamen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I discover with some surprise that my name (David Graeber) is listed as an editor for this journal. This is completely untrue. I am quite sure that Chomsky and Albert have nothing to do with it as well. I think this is some sort of scam.
'Well, how do you then explain the fact that Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors?! This is a shameless accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.100.214 ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked up the old version and it listed David Graeber as a member of Advisory Board, not as an editor. Yamabushi1981 ( talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, maybe it did - but don't you think I would know if I'm the editorial board or not? It's pretty comical that I am telling you, myself, that I'm not on the board, I have never had any contact with these people, and every time I try to take my name off someone puts it back again. Do I have to threaten legal action?
David Graeber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.141.2 ( talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As already mentioned, Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors and Albert's well-known and close colleagues...So I doubt the authenticity of the preceeding comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.101.198 ( talk) 00:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unedited contributors include Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montengerin writers, so the only obvious designation for the language used in the magazine would be Serbo-Croatian, and not these neo-nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" etc. -- ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Stambuk, these people write in their respective national languages (as they are presently defined), so unless you can prove they are writing in "Serbo-Croatian", please stop these and other (tendentious) edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.95.109 ( talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There you go again. Stop vandalising the article, you are well aware it is politically murderous for a magazine in Croatia to be labelled as writing in "Serbo-Croatian" due to nationalist concerns, and it is incorrect, since people in it write in their specific national languages. Your political bias is obvious - for instance - in your edits on the article about Miroslav Krleza, where you fought against the formulation that "he was proclaimed as the greatest Yugoslav writer in the 20th century", although it is common knowledge that he was, and this fact does not necessarily imply such a classification is correct. Now you impute the very things to Novi Plamen which you vehemently rejected in a situation when they were actually applicable/authentic (in the Krleza article). Stop with these political manipulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no specific language identification in the magazine, including no specific identification for "Serbo-Croatian". I tend to agree it might be necessary to add Serbian and Bosnian as languages used in the magazine, but not "Serbo-Croatian", especially since this term isn't used any more to denote languages used in the Western Balkans. Regarding Krleza, you again fail to distinguish the fact he was proclaimed the greatest Yugoslav writer, irrespective of the validity of this classification. As it stands, that article fails to establish the regional importance and - more importantly - regional supremacy of Krleza's literary production, whose literary quality and importance transcends small Croatia and is truly international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 ( talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Matica hrvatska is beside the point here. Current mainstream classifications for these languages are "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Bosnian", definitely not Serbo-Croat. Wikipedia functions on the basis of established scientific norms, not fringe theories. Regarding Krleza, I was just making a claim about Krleza's perception, we're discussing different things. By the way, Krleza is in many ways universal, and definitely a regional writer as well, don't narrow him down, he would be turning in his grave if he knew you were narrowly presenting him as a "Croatian" writer, he was a cosmopolitan humanist first and foremost.
Ok, so why don't you try changing the language designations for the Croatian Globus magazine for instance, or hundreds and hundreds of other magazines, newspapers etc. in the region, none of which are characterised as "Serbo-Croatian"? If 99% of people consider it to be the same language (do please show me where you got this "fact"), why is then this designation so rare??? Croatian is the official language of Croatia (and Serbian is the official language of Serbia), not Serbo-Croat. Your political intentions against Novi Plamen are made clear by your ludicrous characterisation of Novi Plamen as a "Yugoslav magazine", which is a despicable attempt to marginalise the magazine. Stop with your politically inspired sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.201.69 ( talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article has been substantially expanded, with quite numerous mainstream newspaper and TV sources, including references to some TV shows which directly discuss the journal, as well as several laudatory articles devoted to the journal and published in a leading Croatian and Serbian daily newspaper.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Novi Plamen. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)