Talk:Serbia Strong/Archive 1

Archive 1

New additions (unsourced)

Hi Rmhermen,

I was looking at the additions you just made [1], [2], [3], [4]. None of that information is in the RS sources of the article and no offense but your edits appear to be WP:OR. Also in one of your edits you sourced it to Know your meme which as per WP:RSP, Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source. Can you please elaborate on what your basing them on? I ask because in the last 24 hours many IPs and certain accounts have being doing their thing changing content (some pushing anti-Muslim stuff too) at will and causing many complications. Thanks.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari I just reverted him as his additions seemed to be WP:OR. I think this article needs some temporary protection.--Udha (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Udha the above editor is an admin, so i am really surprised hence my query.Resnjari (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari he should have used sources but at least one of these remarks is actually true I believe -- that the globalization of the meme was spread in a large part through its use as (typically intended to be humorous) copypasta on various reddit threads. Like many people who know the internet I remember it's time, and I also read a source that mentioned this yesterday in the context of the massacre in Christchurch. I'll try to see if I can find that again.--Calthinus (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus i cited Reddit thing in the article from a RS source (if there is more RS sources on it do add and expand). In no doubt more will be forthcoming over the months as media and so on will investigate this song/meme/ slogan and publish on it. Until then we should not jump the gun outside the RS sources we have. In the past 24 hours, many IPs and and certain accounts have been doing just that and its been a shitstorm. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, I was just saying that we could add that to independently add useful info -- but it seems I missed that you already had it covers, props on that actually. --Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Its mainly media that has written on the topic. So when i was looking around for RS sources, i looked at wiki's reliable sources list on English language media to make sure what i was adding was firm. I did not want editors to say after i created the article that i used poor quality sources for the article. Its a sensitive topic after all. If you got more RS sources, please by all means add content. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going say to any editor if you have reliable sources that give further information for the page, by all means add and expand the article. But its important that we have reliable sources and not jump the gun by adding extra material that is unsourced. Because then editors pushing POV etc will be like, well you put unsourced material, why can't i. This is a sensitive topic, especially due to the Christchurch shooting and as such its a high traffic article with many readers visiting the page. Diligence is required from including myself.Resnjari (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Wordy Headings (part 2)

"Propagation as a meme and use by the far right" is a massively long heading, and probably violates style guidelines. "Usage in popular culture" would have the same meaning, while also leaving the information in the body of the section, rather than writing it in the heading. Although the "alt-right" is not exactly "popular culture", it is a term that is part of popular culture, and "popular culture" is aware that the "alt-right" uses this meme, hence "usage in popular culture" would reflect this.

"Propagation as a meme and use by the far right" would really implicate that this section would describe why the alt-right has memed it, rather than explaining that it is used by alt-right. Hence, the current section header doesn't even accurately describe the contents of the section. Likewise, is it ok for me to change "Propagation as a meme and use by the far right" to "Usage in popular culture"? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Go ahead.Resnjari (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Wordy Headings (part 1)

The heading "Background of song and performers" seems unnecessarily long to me. If the performers are notable, they should have their own Wikipedia article, and that information should be removed from this page. If they aren't notable, it would suffice to shorten the heading to "Background" and include the performer's background as the "inspiration for the song". Since this article is all about the song, stating that the background section is about the song is redundant. Should we make a page for the artists/performers, or should I re-write the section using their background as a part of the song's background? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123 the performers are not notable (hence no separate articles), its their song which has generated a now famous slogan and meme. And the section mostly is content about the song itself. The only performer who has any information about him is one whose image has spawned the remove kebab meme. That is relevant considering why the song has become famous and the connotations it has become associated with (i.e ethnic cleansing of Muslims etc). I think deleting the words "Background of" would remove the wordiness of the section.Resnjari (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari Perhaps

One of the performers with an accordion, Novislav Đajić, has become a widespread 4chan meme among nationalist groups and is called "Dat Face Soldier" or the image itself as "Remove Kebab".[4][5][9][6][10] Đajić was convicted in Germany for his part in the murder of 14 people during the war resulting in 5 years imprisonment and deportation to another country following his jail sentence.[4]

Should be moved to the subsequent section? It has much more to do with the memes than it does the song itself.

Yes, ok and looking at it here is a suggestion. First with the subsection Background of song and performers, make it either just Song or The song. Then the bit you referred to there transfer it to the second section, but after this sentence: In 2006 the song was posted to the internet and its popularity rose over time with radical white nationalists and has generated many parody videos and images. Like this it flows chronologically. Thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved the information, but I disagree with changing the section name to "the song". I oppose that because the section isn't just a rundown of the song's lyrics, and as a young article, I suspect that such a section will be added in the near future. Hence, I would rather leave it as "Background" to cover it's relation to the Bosnian (civil) War, as the information in the section has more to do with historical context, than it does with the lyrics themselves. ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Its all good. Works out fine the changes you made. Thank you ElectroChip123.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

JNA genocide beret

@Resnjari and Wumbolo: In Finland apparently Varusteleka, that is a military retailer company, decided to make a beret similar to the one in the video, and sell it for 7.99 euros under the title "JNA genocide beret" -- and it was massively successful, with it selling out. Finnish academics took notice and wrote about it [[5]]. The description of the item when it was sold that was presented to the customers who proceeded to buy it until it sold out was as follows:

When committing a genocide one has to look professional. This can be achieved, for example, by wearing a beret. The ones like these have been worn by various villains during the row in the Balkans so much that it makes your stomach twist. Unissued.The traditional Balkan “wear a beret in any weather” war/murder doctrine means that this floppy hat too is pleasant olive green for the particular reason that a lurking, well dressed genocider would be more difficult to spot before it is too late. It is horrible, do not blame us for it.Comes in sizes according to an interesting 1-2-3-system. Size in centimeters at the end. A  notable thing  about  these  is  that the  size  can  be  tightened  for  a  centimeter  or two  with the laces.Most of these are made in Serbia. Some of them, though, have been made in the 2000’s, but why stop manufacturing when there will surely be a need for these later on, as the relations to  neighboring  countries  are  shifting  almost  as  rapidly  and  treacherously  as  the  Finnish legislation  nowadays.We  copied  the  product  image  blatantly  and  without  giving  a  fuck  about  copyright protection  from  Serbs  from  this  video.  Yes,  it  is  the  same  beret.  Catchy  song,  reminds  me  of Vöyrin marssi!

I think this is notable. What do you guys think regarding how it can be included?--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

On my part Calthinus yes its notable and covered by RS. Add it the 2nd section.Resnjari (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of this info ("beret's were sold in reference to this") would belong in the "Usage in popular culture" section. However, a majority of the passage here falls under WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTADVERTISING. Be careful to just stick with the "what's" and "when's". ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, if its written like, "The meme has also inspired a popular clothing range of army berets in Finland". Thoughts ?Resnjari (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be perfectly acceptable. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, wait, i just saw the details of the thesis and it says its a Bachelor's thesis. I don't know the university rankings of Finland, with Wiki only allows for Masters and PHD's in articles. In the Finnish ranking system what would Bachelor's be equivalent too for English speaking countries? Is it the same with our bachelors, i.e would it be a honours thesis etc ? If it is then we can't include it.Resnjari (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is an issue it can probably be fetched via Finnish media. --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally -- this clearly cannot be called advertising, as the item is no longer being sold.--Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Publication

Information that is permanently removed from the article as “original research”:

The original tape was lost and made its way into the archive of the Croatian TV channel OTV. In 2006-2008, it was used in OTV contest "Četnovizija" as intermezzo, and in 2008 the Četnovizija editor Pavle Vranjican uploaded a provocative parody edit of the music video, mixed with documentary footage like trial of Karadžić and like captured Muslim prisoners in wartime Serb run camps. The official music video is made from these two sources, so it has blurred Vranjican's email in the middle.

All statements are supported by sources, except the last, which directly follows from the above and from the video. What is the reason for deleting this important information? The Dvornjaga (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The link to the footage by Radio Free Europe is to the video itself of the tune. Radio Free Europe does not say those things in its article nor does the youtube upload of the music video. The "documentary" to which you keep referring to is an interview by a talkshow. That is not WP:RS (please familarise yourself with these guidelines). The rest is your interpretations of the sources on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT perspective and it shows in the edit history of the page after you made many edits trying to alter the article by basically claiming "its not what the source says". Please desist with the disruption. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They could link the popular upload but they link non-popular upload with few thousand views and with description claiming its authorship. The description says: «Original tape has not been released because it is lost. If we find it, we will set it up. Follow us and be the first to see it» — so the uploaded video is not original tape (also it can't be it because drinking water footage was recorded in 31 July 2008). The 2006 appearence is a part of Četnovizija. This is facts, nothing like «I don't like it». WP:RS says nothing about interviews and talkshows, and all 3 people in telecast are Četnovizija creators according to its credits (for example), also it shows the music video on 19:13 (this edition isn't even found anywhere else) and 30:50. The Dvornjaga (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Most if not all the videos with Serbian lyrics on youtube are the same voices and same footage. Radio Free Europe is a credible news organisation and its journalism is high quality. They are not in the game of going with what's "popular" but as in this instance with the article to explain the video and posted a link from youtube of one of many that are the same. The other video weblinks show mish mashes and cuts of the footage and your using your interpretation to signify what it infers. Wikipedia does not work that way. Reliable sources are needed. Look if you find RS news sites about the original singers, then info can be added.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the rule that sources should be RS news sites? The absolute majority of uploads don't contain information about the artist, but RFE referred to the one who calls himself the author, and therefore - support his version. You want to say that in 1993, the authors of the music video already had a footage from the trial of Karadzic? The Dvornjaga (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They can be scholarly journal articles, books, masters and PHD thesis from credible universities and academia. When i did a search for scholarship of this it mainly did not come up. It was was mainly news articles. This remove kebab thing is a recent phenomenon and especially with the shooting now material will come through. One just has to keep an eye out for it. Regarding the footage of Karadzic, of course was added later by people who still celebrate his past. Find a RS source that discusses the Karadzic footage issue so more info can be added to the article.Resnjari (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Your requirement to use the RS sources is not based on any rule. There is a Croatian TV show with the participation of people whose involvement in the publication of a music video was confirmed back in 2006, and this TV show contains unique excerpts from a music video. To argue that the 2008 version is "of course" was made by supporters of Karadzic is ridiculous and insulting (perhaps the joy to the suffering of civilians is consistent with the left-wing propaganda about the Serbs, but it’s not logical to celebrate own idol going to court). The Dvornjaga (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Dvornjaga, just so editors don't misinterpret what your referring to, what do you mean by "left-wing propaganda"?Resnjari (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The way they serve information. The Dvornjaga (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Dvornjaga, but who is the "they"?Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Supporters of american politics. Don't change the topic, tell your claim to the Croatian TV show. The Dvornjaga (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ok, it appears your not here to edit the article constructively (especially in light of your many edits) and by the looks of things are doing so from a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT perspective. The content is based on reliable sources, something which has been pointed out to you ad nausium. If you continue with disruptive editing, as per the wiki guidelines further action will be taken through the disciplinary avenues in wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably I will never know how the mention of facts, originally mentioned not in the "party line" sources, relates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Dvornjaga (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There you go again with "party line". What's that supposed to mean? Look the sources used are not from some unknown corner of the world. Over coming months because of what happened in New Zealand its highly likely this topic will have more written on it. All one can do is keep an eye out for it and then make edits in good faith.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This news are not about song but about attack, so they copied information from Internet, and Croatian TV show has a direct relationship to the publication of the video. The Dvornjaga (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah of course the main focus of those articles is about the shooting. But how are those news articles not about the song? They all mention it and give details on it. Its why they have been used as reference sources for content in the article.Resnjari (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

ADDRESSING INACCURACY ON ARTICLE:

"Remove Kebab" - Serbia Strong, was more anti-Ustase/Croat than Anti-Muslim. During the conflict, Bosniaks felt the squeeze only as a result of being the "third w×heel" in the Balkan affair, so to speak. The Serbs think they're helping the Croat/Ustase, and the Croats think they're helping the Serbs/Chetniks, and so on. That's why despite the conflict being predominantly Greater Serbia vs Greater Croatia, Bosnians bore the brunt, because they were saw as complicit enemy/traitors by both parties. This song is a reflection of that attitude, from the Serbian Point of view. If you listen to the song, only 1 verse was directed towards Muslims, and half-heartedly so, the other half being directed towards the so called "Ustase" - Croats. Remove Kebab is a meme "title" assigned to the music by the anglophone internet community, and upon examination of the original Serbo-Croatian lyrics, it's predominantly anti-Croat, not anti-Muslim in nature. How the Internet Community (especially the Anglophones) equate it to anti-Muslim, I have no bloody clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:474:150:0:0:1:7 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The article says that the song uses derogative terms Ustashas and Turks, yet it calls Serbian fighters Chetniks, which is a derogative term for the Serbs, used by the Croats and Bosniaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to above: Serbian Factions during the war was known to re-claim the title Chetnik for their own use, similar to how African American vernacular re-claimed "nigger" as "nigga". Example: Baja Mali Knindza's "Cuti Cuti Ujko" referred to Serb forces as Chetniks, despite being Pro-Serbian - lyrics state (translated): "Hello Ustase, Chetnik here, Get fucked by a dog!". Clearly, the title chetnik is reclaimed for purposes of Greater Serbian identity in that context, and it's applicable to this song as well

Your evidence is ???? Your sources are ??? The article is sourced from credible sources and the song is anti-Muslim. On Chetniks, the Serb paramilitaries themselves used the word for themselves during the war. BBC notes that.Resnjari (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Croat paramilitaries used term Ustashe for temselves. So, Ustashe isn't derogatory term, then.BobNesh (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I go by the source. If you come across a reliable source that talks about both the song/meme/slogan and states what you are saying then ok. Until then its fine as it is in the article.Resnjari (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the true contents of the song or its original purpose, the meme around it and the way it has been used is most definitely steeped in anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment. This is the whole reason it's notable in the first place, tragically. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lyrics section

Could this be changed to a two column box? It is way too big and is dominating the page.--Calthinus (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: That's kinda what I was going for, but alas I'm not well versed in wikitext. ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Additionally the lyrics sites are obviously not RS, if that is a thing we are being consistent on.--Calthinus (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely we do need a lyrics section. On the Serb stuff i fixed, on the english its complicated. I don't know if a RS exists out there with its translated form. Has anyone come across it?Resnjari (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need a lyrics section? If we can see some RSes analysing some of the lyrics, I can see no objection, but I personally don't see why they're relevant to the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually you might have a point. In the part about the song some lyrics are already mentioned. It might be repetition to have the section down below. Maybe make it a collapsible table? Remove it altogether? Thoughts everyone?Resnjari (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I personally would remove it altogether, especially as there are no reliable sources for the English lyrics as of yet. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Pinging @ElectroChip123: --Bangalamania (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: i see your point. Ping @ElectroChip123 as the editor placed that section up so we work out something here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bangalamania, Calthinus, and Resnjari: With the amount of "the song is anti-muslim and anti-Croat" statements made in this article, I think it is important to include the actual lyrics from which those conclusions were drawn. If the lyrics themselves are incongruous with the statement made about the song, then either the song has been misjudged (doubtful?) or we need to add some explanation as to how the lyrics are anti-muslim and anti-Croat. ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@ElectroChip123, they are not unverified statements. All content in the article is based on RS. By saying they are conclusions, my question to you is, the news outlets used in the article are they reliable or not reliable sources ? If they are reliable sources (they are listed as such on WP:RSP), then claiming that the article has assertions etc does not suffice. On the lyrics the way the were presented in the article with a table and placed near the top and later middle of the article (depending on the edits done) dominated the page with the focus appearing to be on that. That is WP:UNDUE. The song's lyrics, or more in particular its problematic ones are cited in the article. If one was to reinstate the lyrics in the article, definitely it would have to be without a table border. @Bangalamania, Calthinus, and ElectroChip123:, thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Imo I'm fine with the lyrics so long as they don't take up a huge part of the page. That said, I also don't really see what they add to the article. They are incredibly repetitive, not very interesting, and really useful only if you want to sing along. --Calthinus (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now it is smack in the middle of the page, and kind of dominating the page. For what, repeating "they are fearless" 20 or so times?--Calthinus (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, you make a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way that it could be a kind of a sing along. Having the lyrics dominate the page as is could be misconstrued as promoting the song and attracting the wrong kind of people here that either might troll or be disruptive to the page. Maybe removal is best.Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus and Resnjari:The problem with removal is that it leaves all the statements about the song as conjecture. If we don't have the lyrics, then we don't have anything to back up the assertion that it is "anti-muslim" and "anti-Croat". We tread dangerously around a potential violation of WP:5P2, without them.ElectroChip123 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123 a much better way to deal with this issue is to cite a source saying that, for example, the song became a meme with many of its posters not knowing its origins but thinking its some funny guys with an accordion singing in a funny language (this is, in fact, true). Regarding whether the song is anti-Croat or anti-Muslim, really, I would be shocked to read any RS saying that a song that addressed Croats as Nazis, called Muslims "Turks" as if they are not native (they are) and tauntingly showed footage of Croat/Bosniak POWs is a metropolitan ode to tolerance, but if you have an RS that says this -- sure. I'm also fine with having the lyrics at the bottom of the page. What I don't want is this huge blurb smack in the middle that amounts to saying "they are fearless" 20 times or so with other meaningless-to-Anglophones lyrics (typical British lad: "wtf is Petrovac mate"). --Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123 actually its sourced that it is anti-Muslim and its not an assertion. The prcoess of how that has come about is mentioned in the article. Sure at first is was a war tune taking a dig at the opposition and contained colourful language which was derogatory to wartime opponents. But since the 2000s the song online has taken a life of its own outside the context of the Yugoslav wars and today its being synonymous with being a defacto symbol for the right wing to express anti-Muslim sentiment. That to is explained via RS in the article. So that the song, meme, slogan today for white nationalists implies ethnic cleansing of Muslims is not an assertion. My thing to you would be find a reliable source that argues that the song/ meme/slogan does not carry anti-Muslim connotations. Calthinus is right on this. Anyway RS should drive what goes in the article not WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. The song/meme/slogan is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Even if I agreed personally that the song was not anti-(Bosniak) Muslim or anti-Croat, it is not Wikipedia's job to right a perceived wrong, and doing so based on (user-translated) lyrics is not a good reason for inclusion, and borders on original research. No reliable source in this page has produced the song's lyrics in full, and very few song articles produce large sections of the songs' lyrics. As other people have said, perhaps a case could be made for inclusion in a collapsible box: but I still think that given the ambiguity in translation that we should only use a reliable English translation. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have article about the song in a language that no one knows then you probably have to show text of that song, that would be logic. It would be as if we have article about Nazi crimes and we not mention that crimes in article because it occupies too much space of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.134.10 (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To the IP, there examples like Mien Kampf where we not have the text in the article. Only very small snippets via secondary sources that have analysed the text and are imrptoant so the reader so why it was an issue. Its actually best the same remains here with snippets, but not the whole song. Wikipedia does not want to come off as promoting this song.Resnjari (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Then you can start an article on Serbian war (1991-1995) songs and song lyrics can be there, there are plenty of anti Muslim and anti Croat songs which were produced by the Serbs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_song. It is interesting also when we talk about songs that present main person of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Croatia sang the Serbian Chetniks song that celebrates man who killed the Croats in the Second World War, I know it's weird but it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.134.10 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes i know of the songs. Sadly most of them are now on youtube and very popular with viewership ranging from the few hundreds of thousands into the millions. About wartime songs of the Yugoslav wars, there is a small section in the turbofolk article, maybe that can be expanded. But as with everything on Wikipedia, sources need to be WP:RS.Resnjari (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering that this article was created not long after the recent events in New Zealand it is not surprising that it has influenced the writing of this article and brought some significant POV issues that have to be resolved.

The article, particularly the section "Internet popularity" in its current state it mostly a WP:COATRACK, talking less about the meme itself and more about the various users of the meme. For example, there is whole paragraph dedicated to Novislav Đajić (one of the preformers apparently) and his war crime conviction. And half of the section is about the Christchurch shooters use of it, which is just a single event.

Other problems include the lead, which is mostly focused on the various names the song has, and not about the actual song or the meme itself. Also "Background" is where all the information about the song is, and has very little background about the song itself.

Overall, the article is mostly focused on the Islamophobic modern users of the meme. It discusses the alt-right a lot more than the meme itself. It gives a lot of WP:UNDUE weight to the users, and very little about the video is actually discussed with the correct balance. funplussmart (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Funplussmart, in all due respect the issues brought up are more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. The writing of this article is based upon reliable sources from credible media outlets and even academic studies. I don't know if you have read every single one of the news articles, but "Remove Kebab" is not just a meme, it is a meme and slogan based on a song that has for years acquired anti Muslim meanings among white supremacists and other conservative/far right types wanting to express anti-Muslim sentiment online. To address a few things you say. Of course the lede addresses the name of this song/meme/slogan. They are significant and as other wiki articles do of their topic. Also the reason why there is a whole paragraph on Đajić is because his presence in the video footage of the song has spawned the meme to express anti-Muslim sentiment. Also the Christchurch shooter is mentioned because he is notable as this song/meme/slogan all in one was used by him in his act of shooting. The right wing/conservative/white supremacists/alt right groups that use the meme are cited because it is they who made this a thing online. This is all cited. Of course there will be slight overlap here of there across articles, but i think your addition of the "POV" tag is basically WP:TAGBOMBING and in all honesty should be removed. Wikipedia does not do WP:CENSORSHIP. The topic is notable and has in the short life of the article attracted more then 17,000 views. Readers want to know about this topic.Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree More than agree with :Funplussmart on this one. The only descriptions of the meme's users are that they're all white supremacists, far right, and Islamophobic. I'm not lying when I say the KnowYourMeme article is less biased and less misinformed. And Resnjari, before you give me the "reliable sources" argument, all but two of the sources used were from after the Christchurch shooting, and as such would have a very negative vision of the meme. 180.150.49.44 (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Disagree, the song has also spawned a meme and slogan that are also just as famous if not more so. The song gained widespread popularity on the internet because of those other things and all are known through the name "Remove Kebab". Another thing is the infamy of the song/slogan/meme is because it implies ethnic cleaning of Muslims for people who belong or identify as the right wing or are conservative, hence its negativity. I should note that editors are adding sources on this topic that are before 2019. Its early days since it was created and the article will grow.Resnjari (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Disagree The article is about "Remove Kebab" which includes the song of a different title as well as its popular usage by movements and as an internet meme. The song by itself might not meet WP:NALBUM notability as it's not a national charted single or certified single, and it's extensive non-trivial coverage is broader than the scope of the song itself. DA1 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Disagree extensive RS presented by Resnjari and others have demonstrated that the connection of the meme to Islamophobia has been a continuous relationship spanning at least 13 years. Even the effing name of the meme is tied to Islamophobia. A much better way to handle NPOV issues would be to add that many users of the meme were in fact mocking Islamophobia with it (by tying it to awful sounding music, crappy video quality, general "hillbilly" connotations, and a military unit that is reviled in much of the West for ethnic cleansing). However, the approach here indeed smacks of WP:IDLI. --Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not everything that you disagree with is WP:IDLI. 180.150.49.44 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has spread globally among various people

"...has spread globally among white supremacists" is a misleading formulation, since this song is known, played and sung by very different people worldwide, not only by white people and certainly not mainly by supremacists. Just saw it covered by a Tamil guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.124.181.51 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

here comes resnjari with his "REAL SOURCE SAID THAT SO SHUT UP I DONT WANT TO HEAR YOUR CRITICISM" Jelincic (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Your a mind reader @Jelincic. :) Anyway here is the RS source: [6] "It often appears under the title Serbia Strong or Remove Kebab, an anti-Muslim slogan that began in Serbia but has been adopted by white supremacists across Europe and around the world." So unless there is something contrary to this in the from of RS sources, its ok as it is in the article.Resnjari (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Source 2 doesn't work as i already said before but you ignored that part @Resnjari: [7], you should fix that. - Jelincic (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear WP:SNOW case. The Duke 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Remove Kebab → Serbia Strong – According to KnowYourMeme, "Remove Kebab" was introduced in a webcomic called Polandball / Countryballs. Having just listened to the song, there seems to be no mention of the phrase "remove kebab", and the article appears to be about the song, whose common name appears to be Serbia Strong. The meme and the song appear to be separate entities yet have been intertwined due to their subject matter. SITH (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not the title of the song, and has less ghits and mentions in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 21:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wumbolo. JE98 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per WP:COMMONNAME. This music video (song/tune)/slogan/meme is mainly known as "Remove Kebab". Also KnowYourMeme is not considered as a reliable source in Wikipedia as per WP:RSP, so it should not be the basis for a pagemove.Resnjari (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose based on WP:COMMONNAME. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. More people know it as Remove Kebab, Serbia Strong/Stronk would be what someone searches after. It's a scrap in comparison. puggo (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME.--Udha (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, and speedily close. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and all the above. The Duke 11:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, speedily close doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.--Calthinus (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

You have to be joking.

This has to be the most misinformed article I've ever read on here. I guess this is why teachers don't like students citing Wikipedia. Anti-Muslim? White supremacy? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.49.44 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Read the news articles, they are all reliable sources and content in the article is precise based on them.Resnjari (talk 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What surprises you? This is the English Wikipedia, the liberal news sites are perceived here as sacred scriptures (even if they take information from the Urban Dictionary), and the history of the song and its popularity among normal people is diligently minimized, since the liberal sites did not pay attention to this topic. The Dvornjaga (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As i said to you before, the sources used are reliable and explained it ad nausuem.Resnjari (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not consider the Southern Poverty Law Center, especially given recent events, to be a reliable source. User:D. Royevich

Nice personal opinion.--Calthinus (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is from April 19, 2018, well before the shooting. Wikipedia as per WP:RSP considers the Southern Poverty Law Center, a reliable source.Resnjari (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Yes, but it also states The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from this organization constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. I'm not saying that the SPLC is wrong in their assessment on this topic, I'm merely pointing out that: A. this song didn't originate in the U.S., and B. its assessment needs to be properly attributed as per WP:RSOPINION. ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@ElectroChip123:, yes that was a factor i kept in mind when i wrote the initial article. The Southern Poverty Law Centre source i used [8] mainly discusses the usage of "remove kebab" as a meme (linked to a song from the Yugoslav wars -on this its not contested anywhere not even in these threads by editors and IPs that had differing views on other matters here) in the US and a particular thread called the Donald on Reddit which is relevant. If it went further out of its scope and discussed the origins of the song itself, then no i would not have used it. I hope i made sense there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "remove kebab" was NOT coined by Serbian nationalists, but by a Macedonian living in Turkey who wrote a copypasta making fun of said nationalists. This SHOULD be in the article, but Resnjari kept reverting me. Heepman1997 (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Per [the page history] no account by the name of Heepman1997 has ever been reverted by Resnjari on this page. Perhaps you were using a different account?--Calthinus (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remove_Kebab&dir=prev&offset=20190317122817&limit=500&action=history:

(cur | prev) 01:24, 18 March 2019‎ Resnjari (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,708 bytes) -256‎ . . (unsourced) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:22, 18 March 2019‎ Heepman1997 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,964 bytes) +29‎ . . (→‎Terminology) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:21, 18 March 2019‎ Heepman1997 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,935 bytes) +227‎ . . (→‎Terminology: remove kebab phrase origin) (undo)

Heepman1997 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Heepman1997 ok I looked at this [[9]] -- literally the only problem with your edit is that it's unsourced. Find an RS and you should be fine -- though I was under the impression the specific phrase "Remove Kebab" came from non-Balkanians (as for Serbs/Bulgarians/Albanians/etc even if htey are Christian and hated the Ottoman rule, they tend to be quite fond of kebabs in addition to baklava, "Serbian" aka Turkish coffee, and other Turkish-inspired culinary improvements...). --Calthinus (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Heepman1997, i reverted you because its unsourced and also appears to be WP:OR (original research). Wikipedia is based on WP:RS (reliable sources]]. Another thing the article states that the slogan is from Serbia because that's what journalist Robert Coalson states [10]: "It often appears under the title Serbia Strong or Remove Kebab, an anti-Muslim slogan that began in Serbia but has been adopted by white supremacists across Europe and around the world." No one has offered a RS source to state that this is wrong. Until such time its fine as it is in the article.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"The meme has appeared in over 800 threads on the Internet forum Reddit" Looked at the source, aaaaand, that's a blatant lie. The source talks about r/The_Donald, and when it says that it has appeared in over 800 threads, it means it has appeared in over 800 threads on R/THE_DONALD, not reddit in general. Here's the source it gives: http://archive.is/OWEiO

"Academic research found that in 2018, "Remove Kebab" constituted 1 of every 200 entries on the site Know Your Meme." I couldn't find that info on the source you provided. The only time it EVER mentions remove kebab is for GAB (0.5%)

"The phrase was particularly common on Gab, a website that is known for its mainly far-right user base." You're exaggerating. The source says it has appeared in 149 (0.5%) threads. Now is that "particularly common", Resnjari? Jelincic (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

On the Reddit sentence the whole article by the Southern Poverty Law Center is about Reddit. Comparing the article sentence and content of the reference shows both sentence and source align.

• Wiki article sentence: "The meme has appeared in over 800 threads on the Internet forum Reddit" Reference: Ward, Justin (19 April 2018). "Day of the trope: White nationalist memes thrive on Reddit's r/The_Donald". Southern Poverty Law Center. [11]. Content from source "Threads on Muslims regularly mix open hatred with calls for violence that take the form of esoteric slogans, like “remove kebab” and the Crusader battle cry “deus vult.” Appearing in more than 800 threads, “remove kebab” is a meme that originates from the video “Serbia Strong,” in which a band of soldiers pays tribute to the Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadžić. It is usually accompanied by images of the band’s severe-looking accordion player Novislav Đajić — known as “Dat Face Soldier” — who was found guilty of acts of genocide in 1997."

On the second sentence "Academic research found that in 2018, "Remove Kebab" constituted 1 of every 200 entries on the site Know Your Meme." i was not involved in writing that (you can check the edit history page of the article) and i'm pinging @Calthinus: as they were for further clarification.Resnjari (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

the southern poverty law center's article talks about a SUBREDDIT, /r/The_Donald. The source it gives is an archive.is link, which is a link of a google search that says site:www.reddit.com/r/the_donald "remove kebab" Jelincic (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) indeed does talk about a thread within Reddit. That thread has high traffic for a few years now. Its part of Reddit. I don't see where your going with this. The Donald thread is massive and the SPLC wrote that article some time back. Weblinks and so on are subject to change. If you have an issue i suggest you email the SPLC. Nonetheless their article on the Reddit thread is WP:RS.Resnjari (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

do you even know what the_donald is? it's a subreddit. a SUB FORUM. a SUBREDDIT =/= REDDIT AS A WHOLE. so your phrasing is incorrect and you are purposefully misleading readers. it might be a reliable source, but rephrasing it to make it incorrect? that's just not cool and unethical, as well as against the guidelines.Jelincic (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i know who "the donald" is. ok, i can add the extra info. But your deletion of that content definitely was not warranted.Resnjari (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

it's not a "who". it's a community. you can remove the incorrect info now, or i can if you dont want to. 08:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What do mean by "remove"? Delete the whole thing like before? That is by no means clarifying the sentence and more on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT side.Resnjari (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

oh so deleting **incorrect** info isn't okay? amazing. then i'll remove just the knowyourmeme searches part because that is also incorrect. decide what you feel is the best for readers. factual or infactual information. 08:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelincic (talk • contribs)

What do mean by "incorrect"? What you stated before was that the article omitted information. What one does is add and clarify, not delete and claim otherwise. I adressed your concerns and added the info to the article. Your right, readers should know that this anti-Muslim meme is used on threads bearing the US president's name.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

the incorrect info calthius added is still there. i mentioned why it's incorrect in the first post. but you really had to mention that t_d named after donald trump, huh? you should also mention that it's also used by the alt right. so much for the "unbiased" encyclopedia wikipedia is portraying itself to be. 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelincic (talk • contribs)

I pinged @Calthinus: and i want to hear from the editor first before proceeding. Technically the source used is RS and it does mention the meme on page 9. But you brought up things, its important they are discussed whether part of that sentence is removed or altered or whether there is an additional source for further clarification. On the other issues, yes its used by the alt-right, and yes the thread is named after Donald Trump. How is that "biased"? Or is that "incorrect" information as well? Please, as i said i addressed your concerns and clarified the sentence with extra info. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ah yes. "i have a source so even though i cited information from it incorrectly, it's good because resnjari likes me and won't remove the incorrect information even though he has been called out on it and has removed another user's additions without asking, it's fine." - calthius, probably. **why are you keeping incorrect information up?** 09:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelincic (talk • contribs)

Look, i pinged @Calthinus:. I want to hear from the editor first before proceeding. Your solution is to remove content altogether. Sorry but those references meet RS. How that specific sentence is written is the issue here. On the content of that sentence i want to hear from the editor first before doing something about it. Its what the talkpage is for, to discuss issues with the article if they exist and resolve them.Resnjari (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

look. my solution is objectively the better one. why keep misinformation on a wikipedia article? it's not an issue with the "sentence", it's an issue with the intentional spreading of misinformation. you are for some reason defending it, even though you are the >>supreme ultimate fact wikipediant<< or whatever. there are many issues with the article, and we can easily resolve them together, just let me remove the incorrect information. Jelincic (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your solution is to delete, delete, delete. You have in no way proven that the sources are not RS. What is an issue is with one sentence. Now if @Calthinus: does not reply soon, i'll address that sentence.Resnjari (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway i made the sentence conform to the source and addressed the issue you brought up.Resnjari (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

i've told you so many times that it is a RS but the way information was cited out of it is incorrect. but why did you edit my edits back without asking me first, yet you ask calthius first??? why are you acting like the supreme shqiterare dictator when wikipedia is a community run encyclopedia?? Jelincic (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jelincic:, you pointed out two examples where one sentence needed more information, ok fine, done and another that needed clarification, ok fine also done. Why i am more cautious to your editing because your first go to is not to address the issue using the talkpage or outlining in the edit summary what is what but to claim a catch all "incorrect information" and then delete the sentence etc. On all your other changes, no it is not "incorrect information". Your changes smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to do a sentence by sentence comparison with the sources on which they are based, it can be done in the talkpage and all concerns of "incorrect information" can be addressed. Also can you clarify what you meant by "shqiterare" (i don't know what that means)?Resnjari (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari:, the main issue with this page is the fact that the people who wrote it don't know what they are writing about. It constantly switches between "meme" and "song", even though those are separate entities. 'Remove Kebab' is the instrumental part of the song, while 'Karadžiću, vodi Srbe svoje' is the full song. But this page, well... First it calls it a "music video", then it says the song has "generated a related slogan and Internet meme of the same name" (without elaborating, by the way). Then it says it's a "phrase" and after, that it has spread among white supremacists as a "meme". Which one is it??? You keep on jumping back and forth I'm so confused by even reading the first part. You can be like "but muh wp:idontlikeit" even though you realise that I am right. THIS WAS ONLY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. In the second one it talks about the song's multiple names, okay. But then again, it jumped. Which is the meme? The song or the phrase?

Look i'm not here to discuss the specifics of original research about which parts are considered by some as an instrumental tune or music video unless you have RS. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTAFORUM. The sources used for the sentence note its a music video and hence that is what is described in the article. If you find RS sources that give a breakdown of the composition of the song and how it was made etc that can be added as extra info or even further clarified in the article. Until then that part is fine. The first lede sentence is correct: "Remove Kebab" is an anti-Muslim and anti-Croat Serbian nationalist propaganda music video from the Yugoslav Wars, that generated a related slogan and Internet meme of the same name. I don't see how it confuses things as you state. Its quite clear that the meme and slogan stem from the music video. The body of the article goes into detail about its origin and how it has become widespread. The phrase originated in Serbia as an anti-Muslim slogan, that has spread globally among white supremacists and as a meme which implies ethnic cleansing of Muslim peoples. With regards to "phrase", the use of the word in the context that it is employed in the wiki article is ok as one of its meanings in relation to an expression is "a short group of words that are often used together and have a particular meaning" (Cambridge dictionary) [12]. One thing i am curious is why you used the word "immortalised" for the wiki article sentence when the source itself did not use similar hyperbole terminology? And another thing, what did you mean by "shqiterare"? I am very curious to know so i don't misconstrue your comments going forward. Don't be shy, i can speak and read Serbian.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In internet popularity, it says "The meme has appeared in over 800 threads", which is incorrect. Check the source. The PHRASE has appeared in over 800 threads on /r/T_D, not the meme. Same for Gab. Overall this is a very confusing article that I believe is confused itself. Jelincic (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in the example you gave. The source states: Appearing in more than 800 threads, “remove kebab” is a meme that originates from the video “Serbia Strong,” in which a band of soldiers pays tribute to the Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadžić. [13]. The source states nothing about the slogan of the same name in that sentence. That is done in the previous sentence. The sentence in the wiki article is correct and based on the source. The sentence on GAB is also based on the source. It states its usage (in terms of numbers) and what that website is and its overall user base. I see nothing confusing about it.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright ok "muh RS we can't say it differently outta here with your OR", whatever. But hmmmmmm, why did I use "immortalized"? Because your source uses it. "He drove up to the mosque playing the famous pro-Serb song that the alt-right has immortalized under the name ‘Remove Kebab’" Here's the source you added yourself (source 15). I was just following your guidelines. I said "Shiqetare" (i meant shqiptar) in a mean way because it's pretty evident that you're a Kosovar, but that doesn't matter. What matters are facts. Jelincic (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You could use a synonym. The way its written at the moment does that capturing the essence of the source sentence. On the other thing, no i am not a Kosovan, nor my parents, nor grandparents or their grandparents. My parents are from villages in Macedonia right on what is currently the border with Greece. I myself an an Aussie. Still, I never mentioned what ethnic group my parents are from in the talkpage. Why are you referring to an editor's supposed ethnic background an d what does that have to do with editing an article?Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow you are such a victim of hate speech on the internet :(. I knew you'd spend 90% of the time talking about that instead of focusing on what I said. "You could use a synonym." No, I'm going to do it "as per source". As you said. If I try to paraphrase the sources I get my edits reverted anyways, so what's the point? Jelincic (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I never said "victim". I asked you what was meant by the word and why you used it so i did not misunderstand you. See there is WP:OUTING and WP:NATIONALIST. You might need to read up on these. No one inferred something of you or whatever your background is because its not relevant. Going forward in future its best not to go there. On the other matter, the article is paraphrased already while still encapsulating what the sources state.Resnjari (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

you did it again. i mean thanks for educating me about WP guidelines, i guess? but still. why do you dislike the word "immortalized" so much? you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, i just do my job and edit the articles as per source, while you oversimplify it - in the process it loses its original meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelincic (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Its not about educating you, its about educating me by what you meant. As per your clarification on what you originally wrote "supreme shqiterare dictator" would translate as supreme Albanian dictator. Or your mention of "Kosovar". Interesting that. It appears that my background whatever it is, is an issue for you. Don't do it again. On the other matter it does not lose its original meaning. Immortalize: "to make someone or something so famous that that person or thing is remembered for a very long time" [14] (Cambridge dictionary).Resnjari (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

could you stop ignoring what you don't want to reply to? "why do you dislike the word "immortalized" so much? you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, i just do my job and edit the articles as per source, like you told me" Jelincic (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Because a word for word mention from the article is plagarisim. Some words are unavoidable as there are no replacements, others can be written in other ways or synonyms used.Resnjari (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:NPOV "as per sources". if you cite sources it's ok, even if you use a word the source used.Jelincic (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed as per the sources, but we don't do plagiarism. If a word replacement can be found i.e synonym or using a few extra words it doesn't hurt while still staying within the bounds of a source. Now is there any other actual issues with the article, otherwise we're done here.Resnjari (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

i don't know if you have read the source, however WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to rephrase and then claim that "we don't use words like "immortalized'". who are you to do so??? and why are you changing the subject of this conversation with "is there any other actual issues with the article"? "it doesn't hurt while still staying within the bounds of a source" yeah no. "immortalized" has many meanings and it isn't up to you to decide which one you'll use. it should be as per the source (that YOU chose and implemented, by the way). EDIT: oh and btw source 4 404s. Jelincic (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the above comment. I am not here to engage in a merry go round of polemics.Resnjari (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Go and read WP:OWN, Resnjari. You basically act like you own this article. ru.wiki's version of the article is as much about the song itself and its original, humorous use of the meme as it is about the modern Islamophobic context. Heepman1997 (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Heepman1997: Exactly. but "muh REAL SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE" is preventing anyone else from adding their own content

Why on earth is ru.wiki a model for us??--Calthinus (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Resnjari: regarding your removal of "anti-Croat", it's supported by RS, see [15] [16]. If you want to argue that it is undue for the lead, fine, but it is supported by RS, which were removed here. wumbolo ^^^ 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo and Resnjari: imo the anti-Croat aspect should definitely not be excluded; although it is less prominent on the internet than the Islamophobic/anti-Bosniak aspect, the song does equate the entire Croatian side in the fight with WWII fascists.--Calthinus (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Your first source says “Beware Ustashas and Turks,” says the song, using wartime, derogatory terms for Bosnian Croats and Muslims. The second one says "The wolves are coming, beware, Ustashi and Turks," the lyrics to the song run, referring to Croatian nationalist fighters and Bosnian Muslims. Basically none of those say it's anti-Croat. That would be your own personal assumption. Wikipedia relies on RS, and even though those two are reliable, you can't just misquote something and say it's "anti Croat". Jelincic (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:, i know where your coming from. And with Gambrell's piece yes it states that the song is making a derogatory reference to Croats. But the source doesn't use "anti-Croat". By placing anti-Croat in the article, its original research. Now i know me being a purist about this means that in all appearances i'm being an ass, but this article has received a lot of vandalisation (its mainly been me for a while holding back the POV pushers) and editors wanting to remove or alter content at will due to what they have felt was right outside the prism of RS sources. If "anti-Croat" stands without something stating that, there are editors willing to run amuck and trash this article by removing what for them are the negative aspects of the song and its legacy. They will use that bit to say, well if that stands and none of the sources state that outright, why can't i do as i wish on other aspects. All i can say to you is if you come across a RS source that states "anti-Croat" (it does not matter from what language it comes from and don't doubt for a second that Croatian media has written something on this, etc), by all means add the ref and the bit "anti-Croat" to the lede where it belongs. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what I like to call RS fundamentalism, which strays from the original intent of WP:RS. Alas, sure, we can work this way if we all want to. Here we have [Tarrant’s choice of music to accompany him on the killing spree was Remove Kebab, the wartime propaganda song dedicated to Karadzic, glorifying the war criminal and his Serb followers who would slaughter Muslims and Croats (balije and ustase). The song has since become a popular anti-Muslim anthem among white supremacists and associated groups and individuals across the world, all linked through social media... The live streaming of the killings in New Zealand also very much resembles, in its cruelty and content, the executions of Muslim civilians seen in a notorious video by the Serb paramilitary unit Scorpions...]. @Jelincic and Resnjari: perhaps in the spirit of RS fundamentalism we should change the lede to say "... song glorifying Serb soldiers who would slaughter Bosniaks and Croats" (Islamophobia of meme cited separately)? --Calthinus (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, i'm not against having it in there. I think it is relevant and apt. There should be a source out there that has that particular phrasing (most likely in Croatian media). I will say this, from my perspective its been mainly myself that has halted much of the article being trashed over the past few weeks. And the principle i cited was RS sources to stop it happening. If leeway is made here or there then the gates are open. Then what, are other editors going to come and stand up for the article to prevent POV and OR going all over the place? There are other considerations that need to be taken into account. @Wumbolo: can find something in Croatian media about the song that says it is anti-Croat (words like anti-Hrvatska/Hrvatskom/Hrvatskog naroda, protiv Hrvata/Hrvatska etc, etc) and a reference can be added and places this issue to rest. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah Resnjari but now I've presented an English source saying the song is about glorifying slaughterers of Croats? So, surely, going on RS alone -- that should be sufficient to say as much -- not "anti Croat" but "glorifying Serb soldiers who slaughtered Bosniaks and Croats" (source uses balije --clear reference to ethnic Bosniaks and not only Muslims as Bosniaks can be atheist, separate reference for Islamophobia maintained). --Calthinus (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, with the source you highlighted we can add more detail to this sentence "The song's content celebrates Serb fighters and the wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić" to The song's content celebrates Serb fighters killing Bosniaks and Croats along with the wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić..... Look i'm not against adding credible info, but on very certain contentious keywords its best to have it said iron clad. Maybe my caution is because i have had to deal with the POV pushers, trolls and vandals on my own most of the time on this page, so its made me be this way. As i said @Wumbolo can find a source and it then can be referenced beyond doubt.Resnjari (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I added Halilovich and the extra bit to the article.Resnjari (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is good but we now have a source clearly stating the song's animosity to Croats as well and it should in some way be put into the lede (Croatian media or whoever explicitly saying anti-Croat of course is a further improvement but currently we do not yet have that).--Calthinus (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

English sources don't explore the anti-Croat part as much (i've looked and looked) and just touch on it, the focus has been on the anti-Muslim/anti-Bosniak part. We just need one RS ref (whatever language it is in) that uses the words anti-Croat etc. This is where i think @Wumbolo: can assist. @Wumbolo, just find me a RS Croatian source (words like anti-Hrvatska/Hrvatskom/Hrvatskog naroda, protiv Hrvata/Hrvatska etc, etc about the song) and ping me. I can read Croatian, i'll also do the referencing and add it all to the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

when did this talk page become a hunt for an article that says the worst things about remove kebab??? it was already bad at first, but now it's just "@WUMBOLO HELP ME FIND A RS THAT SAYS IT'S ANTI CROAT PLEASE SO I CAN SPREAD MORE ANTI-SERB PROPAGANDA" and humble brags like "i can read croatian by the way so no need for translating (☭ ͜ʖ ☭)"Jelincic (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"1 of every 200 entries"

Here's information this WP article tries passing off as truth.

Academic research found that in a dataset obtained by scraping Know Your Meme in 2018, "Remove Kebab" constituted 1 of every 200 entries per community in a data set sampled for political memes. "Remove Kebab" was particularly common on Gab, a website which "attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and trolls, and high volumes of hate speech".

Both of the claims are backed by this source

Now i went to the source, and here's some things that are misquoted/misrepresented:

• "1 of every 200 entries" is correct (0.5% = 1/200), but "per community in a data set sampled for political memes"? I beg to differ. It shows in the table that it constitues for 0.5% of posts on GAB, which leads into my second point.
• "Remove Kebab" is only mentioned once in the entire pdf. Same for "Serbia Strong". The problem is that I couldn't find any mentions of it being "particularly common on Gab", something that is mentioned so profoundly that I almost started believing it myself. But if you're going to say that "1 in every 200 entries" is "particularly common", I don't know what you're thinking.

- Jelincic (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Alleged shooter or not

@Ianmacm: The Christchurch shooter is a convicted gunman. https://www.mynation.com/world/christchurch-terrorist-smirked-when-convicted-all-about-brenton-harrison-tarrant-pogmhv According to WP:BLPCRIME this makes it logical to say he is the perpetrator of his crimes. puggo (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to see how he has been convicted when there hasn't been a trial yet. This is why I cited WP:BLPCRIME (A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction) in this edit summary . In the article Christchurch mosque shootings, Brenton Tarrant has not been tried and convicted before the trial. I've clarified the wording in this article. The source https://www.mynation.com/world/christchurch-terrorist-smirked-when-convicted-all-about-brenton-harrison-tarrant-pogmhv says "Christchurch terrorist smirked when convicted". No he didn't, he smirked in court when he was charged with the murders on 16 March. Back to the drawing board for the headline writer here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does this even has its own page?

I mean, is a popular meme really worthy of having its own wikipedia page? Shouldn't this go into the list of Internet phenomena? With all the redirections and changes that it involves, of course. What I mean is that, the context of the song is more important than anything. What should be talked about is the historical context in the relevant pages, adding as a commentary that the song originated a meme (which should point to the respective page) --190.237.196.143 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Fix the inaccuracies in the article.

That's all I'm saying. Don't brush it off as muh "reliable" sources and be completely ignorant to further your agenda. 180.150.49.44 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what changes you want made? Benjamin (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"anti-"ness redux

Ding dong ping pong talk talk time: @Resnjari, Sadko, Wumbolo, and Pavel Shvalov:.--Calthinus (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the lyrics do not support that stetement. See - WP:BURDEN Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See Coalson 2019. "Anti-Croat"/"anti-Bosniak" can also be vague. One might interpret it as pro-slaughter. But not necessarily. --Calthinus (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are four sources for it right now. Maybe a better idea than outright removal is, if there is a source disputing this, bringing that up so we can add an alternative POV to balance.--Calthinus (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, did you hear me? There is no such thing in the lyrics, it's far-fetched, to say the least. Check them, please. Not really, those link are about the NZ attack, including an opinion piece. What would your alternative suggestion be? Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

My personal POV: any and all songs by any side in that war are quite "anti" by symbolic value. But interpreting symbols and lyrics is not our job. Its for RS. My alternative is that we find a source -- including an opinion piece perhaps -- that disputes this viewpoint if it matters to you. Clearly such a dissenting view exists. It deserves a sentence -- if we can find an RS. That's how NPOV works, we portray both sides.--Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence but it is a bit off topic. Nobody is interpreting anything, it takes about 1 minute to read the whole thing... There is no such thing in the lyrics, which is allegedly claimed in the articles by 2 journalists talking about the NZ massacre and 1 opinion piece which is for premium members only. As I said, there are 3 refs, this one does not claim anything about "celebration of killing of Bosniaks and Croats" and the case Radio Free Europe ref. is the same. Some editor added the celebration part, out of a whim. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That bit is sourced to a peice by Hariz Halilovic, a professor/social anthropologist based in RMIT Univeristy in Melbourne [17], the other two journalists don't refer to that aspect. Halilovic was discussing the overall context of the song about Karadžić, fighting the fight with lyrics invoking that sentiment, i.e: Iz Krajine krenuli su vuci, krenuli su vuci! Čuvajte se Ustaše i Turci, Ustaše i Turci! (From Krajina, the wolves are coming, the wolves are coming! Watch out, Ustashe and Turks, Ustashe and Turks!). In general the word "Wolves" was used by several Serb prarmilitary forces (i.e Wolves of Vučjak) active in the Croatia/Bosnian theatre war at the time (see: [18] Marvin 2012, pp. 78–79) with some of its leadership (i.e Dragan Vasiljković) found guilty of committing war crimes. So when it says the Wolves are coming and then its followed by Ustaše, a word used for both Croat fighters and civilians, but especially Turci, a word used in a derogatory sense for Bosniaks as a whole, it leaves little as to what it’s inferring and 'who' is coming for them. There were many songs of this kind back in the war, nearly all are wartime relics of the 1990s, its only this one that is still current in our time. If this song never had those connotations in its lyrics, it would lack a basis to become a global anthem or expression years later among right wing online communities, who use it as a euphemism/meme for killing Muslims embodied in the words "Remove Kebab".Resnjari (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What is his quote, page number? I see, in that case we indeed have an interpretation at hand. The song is full of threats and vile comments but it has no celebration of any kind. "What if" is not an argument. A single opinion piece which is pretty much an interpretation of the lyrics is not a good basis to include the part about "celebration of killings" in the article. It is mostly misleading. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Halilovic's article was published in a Czech based publication Transitions. It’s a magazine that often attracts analysis or opinion pieces by academic types. As of now, the article has become inaccessible and requires a subscription to see it which is unfortunate. So it’s hard to see if it’s an analysis or opinion piece. So at the moment i am neither for keeping or removing it as a source. All other news sources in this wiki article are news reports and opinion pieces (which were many at the time of the Christchurch shooting) were excluded to avoid POV issues. Thoughts on how to proceed here?Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The RS do support the statement, and they are usable here. The right question is not "are they wrong", it should be "can we find something else". It does not matter what we think the song means, what we think of its lyrics, or even if its lyrics are what matters in the first place. Assuming songs reduce to their lyrics is dangerous in fact. Songs -- like other cultural artefacts -- are often symbolic beyond their tangible form (lyrics). I think we all agree taht there are some racist slurs in the song (calling Croats Ustashas, literally equivalent to calling Germans Nazis; "Turks" for Bosniaks i.e. denying them their Slavicness/Europeanness, "balije", etc.). But -- even if the song did not have these, even if it was actually about chocolate candies, it could become a jingoistic anthem. That is crazy, you will say. Well, an originally innocuous frog meme called Pepe had just that happen. It is not our right as wiki editors to judge what things "mean". It is possible the page at present has the song as a bit more bloodthirsty than the authors may have intended. Maybe some ultranationalists liked listening to it as they shot up their Croat and Bosniak former compatriots and it became associated with that, or maybe it was Western Islamophobes who made it much more bloodthirsty than its Serbian use, who knows. We don't, and we don't care, because its not our job. Our job is to present what RS say on a topic. If you think it can be further improved, go about it by finding RS.--Calthinus (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw, @Sadko and Resnjari:, the Czech publication is still available, read it here [[19]]. Para quoted: Tarrant’s choice of music to accompany him on the killing spree was Remove Kebab, the wartime propaganda song dedicated to Karadzic, glorifying the war criminal and his Serb followers who would slaughter Muslims and Croats (balije and ustase). The song has since become a popular anti-Muslim anthem among white supremacists and associated groups and individuals across the world, all linked through social media.--Calthinus (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Good find Calthinus! :) You said it better then i could in your 2 comments there. Halilovic is RS and the source in question is an analysis piece. As such i support it remaining, as the source delves into the wartime context from which the song originated from and its subsequent layered meanings of the lyrics and terminology used.Resnjari (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Serbia stronk

Serbia stronk, not Serbia strong. Remove Kebab is a Meme from Countryball and outside Serbia more popular than in Serbia where almost nobody knows it. Just look at Youtube. Do not make it a nationalist propaganda of them! Apparently, for some (most Bosniaks) the terrorist attacks in New Zealand comes right for their political purposes.--Carski (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This is true and no relevant source is claiming that the Remove Kebab phrase originated in Serbia, yet some users are constantly vandalizing this page with that nonsense. BobNesh (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

We have this source about Remove Kebab

"Serbia stronk" is just a variation of Serbia strong. It appears to have been changed in a similar fashion to Chinese whispers Loganthebogan1272 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

On May 24th, 2006, YouTuber Momcilo uploaded a music video titled "Dzamije lete" (english: Mosque Fly), which opens with edited footage from the "Serbia Strong" music video, garnering more than 378,000 views. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/serbia-strong-remove-kebab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDTRPzCLQs

Song lyrics of "Dzamije Lete" https://lyricstranslate.com/en/%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0-poor-independent-bosnia.html

"Poor Independent Bosnia ALAS poor independent Bosnia Thanks to Alija you are destroyed Because you declared Bosnia's independence There will no longer be a head on your shoulders

It is time for the Serbian revenge All the mosques will be blown away There's no more Ante, Azem or Tito To protect you from the Serb again

There's no point to hold the Ramadan fast Nor Allah nor Virgin Mary will save you No one is as strong as the Serb And the Serbs will not be enslaved again

It is time for the Serbian revenge All the mosques will be blown away There's no more Ante, Azem or Tito To protect you from the Serb again

You wont get away like last time, Alija And you will carry your dimije on a stick Your doom is already in sight Right when your daughter is studying politics

It is time for the Serbian revenge All the mosques will be blown away There's no more Ante, Azem or Tito To protect you from the Serb again"

There is also on Youtube and this Serbian song from year 2009. "Best Kebab Remover We Serbs are Supermens"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gp9zZr5CJM

On the Internet there is and this information(Countryball) that you mentioned. "Serbia is often seen as a very violent and aggressive country. He hates any sorts of muslims or kebab, especially his own (Talking to you Kosovo), and tries to deny any sort of war crimes he commited during the yugoslav wars. Though he may act aggressive, he is really just a sad, poor country who has lost almost everything and everyone from the days of Yugoslavia, which is why he doesn't want to lose Kosovo." https://polandball.fandom.com/wiki/Serbiaball

I do not know who is the owner of that site or editor but some links with Serbia are probably there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.8.138 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Know Your Meme (probably not an RS, I know), says it originated in 2010 and was coined by a Macedonian expat in Turkey as a gag phrase. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

With Know Your Meme anyone can create an account, edit the page and make it say whatever they want. It does not meet RS, while the sources in this article do meet that criteria.Resnjari (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I know, I'm still very skeptical over the claim that the exact phrase originated in Serbia. I was always under the impression for years that it was coined by foreigners as a gag line; and even trusted RSes can get things wrong every now and then occasionally. Best, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that its a gag line, and its something from the gamer and forum worlds, and it originating from Serbia does not contradict with. There are Serbs who are gamers, comment (in English) on forums etc. In regards to trusted RS' getting it wrong, one would have to show that to be the case with something substantial which would be via other RS stating that.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we just rename this to "Serbia Strong"?

calling it "remove kebab" is unfair, just because of one line "čuvajte se, ustaše i turci" (translation: "watch out, ustashe and turks")

maybe make "remove kebab" redirect to "Serbia Strong"? idk just an idea Jelincic (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Its most common name is Remove Kebab and of the meme and slogan it generated.Resnjari (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree I agree with Jelincic with this. Citing Run Away (SunStroke Project and Olia Tira song) and Dragostea Din Tei as examples, the article for these songs are named according to the title of the composition rather than that of the meme that is connected to that composition. Markoolio97 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

These are national charting singles. They meet WP:MUSICNOTE notability. "Remove Kebab" isn't about the single by itself, it merely includes the song as part of its background. DA1 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Disagree, the song has also spawned a meme and slogan that are also just as famous if not more so. The song gained widespread popularity on the internet because of those other things and all are known through the name "Remove Kebab".Resnjari (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that nowhere in the article does it specify where "remove kebab" actually came from and that it's not actually part of the song's lyrics. So I think that should be clarified.M-Tails-P (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually it does : One of the performers with an accordion, Novislav Đajić, has become a widespread 4chan meme among nationalist groups and is called "Dat Face Soldier" or the image itself as "Remove Kebab".[3][4][9][5][10] --Calthinus (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree as per Markoolio97 --Bangalamania (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Changed to  Disagree as per the explanation given below. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• • @Bangalamania and Markoolio97: those pages are actually about the songs (the meme from Run Away is in fact "Epic Sax Guy"). This page is not about the song but in fact the meme (the "meme" being the videoclip akin to the infamous Rickroll clip from the song "Never gonna give you up" by Rick Astley which has its own page distinct from its meme usage described in Rickrolling) -- the song, on the other hand, is background and thus described in the background section. Eventually it may be appropriate to actually split the two but for now we are dealing with one page and the meme has more notability than the song, imo, so it should take precedence.--Calthinus (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is about song/meme/slogan (the latter two stem and are a by product of the first) and "Remove Kebab" is the common name of all of them.Resnjari (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Imho they're different entities -- the song is "Karadzic lead your Serbs", it spawned a meme that took a life of its own known by either "Remove kebab" or (I believe less commonly) "Serbia stron(g/k)", and both of those two became slogans primarily among people not actually living in the Balkans with different meanings ("R--- k---" -- either Islamophobic or less commonly generally anti-Balkan but see also some sarcastic usage in Polandball instead to mock Islamophobes as ignorant/hillbillies-playing-accordions-to-awful-music, "Serbia strong" a somewhat self-deprecating expression of Serbian pride and/or just mocking thereof -- in the English internet that is). I do agree that the best way to handle the hairball is a single page; I think if any of these aspects of the phenomenon (song, meme, slogans) is the most notable, it's the meme, and the meme's more common name is "Remove kebab".--Calthinus (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• • @Calthinus: Good point. On a similar point, I think the article should make a clear difference between the song and the meme. I have changed to disagree. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Disagree, this phrase is what most people remember the video and its subsequent memes by. puggo (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Disagree The article is about "Remove Kebab" which includes the song of a different title in addition to its popular usage by movements and as an internet meme. The song by itself might not meet WP:NALBUM notability as it's not a national charted single or certified single, and its extensive non-trivial coverage is broader than the scope of the song itself. DA1 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree , this song is most commonly referred to as "Serbia stronk" or "Serbia strong". In this article it mentions the "Serbia strong" as one of the names. "Serbia strong" is arguably the most common name for the SONG! However, remove kebab is arguably the most common name for the meme.<https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/serbia-strong-remove-kebab></https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfF4P43eRF8> This is why I propose we add (Serbia strong) in brackets as so It allows the reader to understand the article is about the song and the meme as a whole. "Serbia stronk" IMHO seems more self-deprecating than Serbia strong.Loganthebogan1272 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree "Serbia Strong" is both the correct name and the WP:COMMONNAME of the song in the Serbian language. It seems to have acquired the title "Remove Kebab" as an English language meme.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Disagree It's not the common name. The article is about the meme/slogan as the song itself is not very notable. This discussion should have been closed long ago. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This matter did not need to be reopened. Additionally, the meme stopped being about Serbia (or Bosnia) ages ago and many people who use it can't even find Serbia on a map. --Calthinus (talk)

No, Serbia strong/stronk is almost always the term most people I personally have heard refer to the song as, THe middle ground wold be to place "Serbia strong" in brackets Loganthebogan1272 (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on... what?--Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti Turkism

@Sadko:, isn't the main motive behind this anti Turkism? Even the lyrics has direct hatred against Turks. Why did you revert?

No, it is not. "Turks" is the local (disgusting) term for Slavic Muslims (modern-day Bosniaks, who were formed as a nation at the times when the song was made), who have very little in common with Turkish people (genetics, language, roots) besides religion and other customs which were introduced with the Ottoman occupation of the region. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the primary target of the use in the Serbian context was Bosniaks. In the Western context, not the Serbian one, it targets Turks but only as Muslims, not as specifically Turks; there really isn't specific Anti-Turkism in the West and ignorant Westerners often aren't aware that Turks are not Arabs, Turkey is full of forests not a desert et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I know that but the main motive behind is that, that's what I am telling. Beshogur (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be focused on the song accompanying the old meme, as opposed to implications of anti-Turkism, islamophobia etc? If that's the case I concur, that this is written a bit out of proportion, the majority looking for th only know the song. No edits now but maybe in future. ~ Grey.vs.gray (talk)

"The phrase originated in Serbia" ?

Please provide the source, do not just remove my request!

This phrase is not in Serbian, so it's extremely unlikely it was created by Serbian speaking people. If you translate it to any South Slavic language, it doesn't mean anything, as everybody on Balkans considers kebab (local variants) part of their cuisine. The kebab on Balkans has nothing to do with religion! --N Jordan (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Some agreement here. There isn't any serious doubt that the song originated in Serbia during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The phrase "remove kebab" is less clear, and may be the name that the song acquired as an Internet meme in the English speaking world. The lyrics of "Serbia Strong (God is a Serb)" do not include the phrase "remove kebab", so it is not possible to cite this as derived from the song itself. The source here tends to support this theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

N Jordan actually no. Just because a phrase is in English does not preclude that it originated in a non-English speaking country. English is a worldwide language and various words have been utilised outside the traditional Anglophone zone. All i see here is conjecture that it was "extremely unlikely" etc, etc regarding the song. How so.? Evidence is? The sentence is referenced to Robert Coalson and he is quite clear on this. Remove Kebab, an anti-Muslim slogan that began in Serbia but has been adopted by white supremacists across Europe and around the world. [20]. ianmacm on the source [21] you provided by John R. Schindler, it only mentions the song in one place and the following is stated He played an infamous Serbian nationalist song from the 1990s – called ‘Remove Kebab’ on the far-right it calls for killing ‘Turks’ and name-checks Radovan Karadžić – as background music for the snuff film he streamed online of his killing spree. It does not contradict Coalson. The history of how the names of song, meme and phrase are linked have been outlined in the body of the article via RS sources. Unless someone can provide something substantive soon, i will be restoring the previous text, as was in the article.Resnjari (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What I would see here are sources referring to "remove kebab" in Serbian. What, for example, does this phrase look like when it is translated into the Serbian language? It is cited entirely from the English language, which is what set off my suspicions. There is a version of the song lyrics in Serbian and English here, but the lack of the phrase "remove kebab" is a worry. Surely there must be at least one Serbian language source using it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, it could be possible that there might be Serbian sources on the matter. I am open to having a read and if they meet RS to add content based from them into the article. Certainly editors who are of a Serbian/Croatian/Bosniak speaking background have contributed to the article, as one can see in the article editing history page and the talkpage comments. To date no one has presented something on this particular matter. On the song/meme/phrase, English news outlets overwhelmingly discussed this topic due to the Christchurch shootings. Due to that event that there was enough source material to write a wiki article. Anyway, sources added to the article met RS. On the lyrics, true, the word "remove kebab" is not used in the song, per se. It’s a name that has been given to it many years later by the alt right, far right and among white supremacist circles. It’s all extensively outlined in the body of the wiki article and anyone wanting to read further can consult the accessible sources further. The origin of that name as a phrase has also been noted by Coalson. That is notable to have in the article.Resnjari (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that somebody, somewhere must have used the phrase in the Serbian language if it is commonplace in Serbia. This is the sticking point, as all of the sourcing for the phrase is in English.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, terminology doesn't have to be widespread for it to originate from somewhere. It was a phrase that later became used globally via online communities among specific groups such as the alt right, far right and white supremacist circles. They attached the phrase to this song and to a meme based on a still photo from the music video. That's how the song/meme/phrase is closely interrelated and conjoined. If editors have Serbian sources, they are most welcome to present them. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the Serbian language version is Уклони ћевап/ Ukloni ćevap but the only source for this is here. I'm not convinced that this has ever been a common phrase in the Serbian language, and it looks like the title given to the Internet meme in the English language.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, Coalson never wrote that remove kebab was either a common phrase or from the Serbian language. All the journalist stated was that the phrase originated from Serbia. In relation to the meme and its name, yes of course it was the title given to the image on the internet in the English language. That too is well sourced in the article. It was also the name given to the song as well. But the phrase itself was picked up by the far right, alt right, white supremacists and attached to the song. That said, the phrase came from somewhere and we have a source that states its origin. Nothing has been provided to the contrary. In regards to sources, like the one you placed there, prior to the Christchurch shootings there were barely any articles that dealt with the song/meme/phrase, and when they did it was a sentence or two. The meme though was quite big among the alt-right etc. A lot of content out there at the time was on fandom websites, community threads about memes etc. The Christchurch shooting made media focus on song/meme/phrase. In the end, the trial of the gunman will commence in the not to distant future. Once again media will write on this topic as it will probably be brought up in court proceedings due to the prominence the gunman placed on song/meme/phrase. So new information may emerge or various clarifications may appear, etc.Resnjari (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlson’s article is the only source I found on the Internet, but it is not clear if the slogan that began in Serbia was “Serbia Strong” or “Remove Kebab.” As Resnjari said, “ It’s a name that has been given to it many years later by the alt right, far right and among white supremacist circles.” I assume that both the name of the song and the slogan/meme itself have the same origin. It probably originated among the people that could identify the dish (kebab) with the people who eat it or have ethnic restaurants serving that food. In former Yugoslavia, it is not possible to make that kind of identification, as kebab (in local versions) is very popular dish among all ethnic groups, and all of them consider it a part of their culinary heritage. I would leave the last edit by ianmacm as is. --N Jordan (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

N Jordan, Coalson appears to be clear [22]: {tq|"It often appears under the title Serbia Strong or Remove Kebab, an anti-Muslim slogan that began in Serbia but has been adopted by white supremacists across Europe and around the world."}} Coalson refers to both names and on the second, i.e "remove kebab" he goes into detail about where it comes from. The word "or" is the key break in the sentence sigifiying it. In general about comments on food, people can still eat the food and give others various names based on it. Anyway, thats all very interesting but unless there are sources going into detail about likes and dislikes of kebabs in the region and this topic, it’s all conjecture. So far no editor has brought a source to disprove or contest Coalson. Unless something is produced soon, i will restore the content soon.Resnjari (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm worried about overreliance on the Coalson source, given that a web search shows that Уклони ћевап/ Ukloni ćevap is not at all commonly found on the Serbian language web. Journalists have been known to get things wrong, they are not infallible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On my end, my concern is that there is nothing substantive produced thus far to show that this is the case through reliable sources and alike with regards to Coalson. A similar could be made for large portions of the article (which kind of have in earlier threads in the talkpage) and its sources that so and so was mentioned once here or there, this or that bias etc. I know i am sounding like a broken record on this, but RS sources on this topic were scarce prior to the Christchurch shooting and it was because of that event that there were enough sources to compose this article. In the not too distant future the trial of the gunman will happen and this song/meme/phrase will be in the spotlight again in legal proceedings due to the prominence the gunman gave them all in the event. So one should keep a lookout on reporting when that happens. Then additions or corrections can happen if need be. Until then, the sentence in question was ok.Resnjari (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

For me it is very problematic that Serbian language speakers never seem to use the phrase Уклони ћевап/ Ukloni ćevap, and it also seems to be a worry for N Jordan. I think these worries need to be addressed, rather than simply arguing that Coalson must be right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If we take that approach, it’s inferring that the term had to be in Serbian for it to be used by people in Serbia. Words and language don't always operate that way, especially in this day and age where English terms make thier way other languages. All Coalson notes is that the term came from Serbia. It could have been one person, a few or more who began using the term "remove kebab" first in Serbia, before it got picked up globally. That said, it's not a reason to keep out an important piece of information about where the expression came from, which has become synonymous with the song and meme.Resnjari (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be happier to leave out any mention of the phrase "remove kebab" coming from Serbia until firmer evidence is found, ideally in a Serbian language source. As I've said, it looks like this is the title of an Internet meme in the English language, not a phrase that Serbian language speakers use themselves. When referring to the song, it is usually known as "God is a Serb" or "Serbia Strong". There is plenty of RS for this in the Serbian language.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What is meant by firmer evidence? Coalson had his article published by Radio Free Europe. Either Coalson is or is not reliable. Either Radio Free Europe is or is not a reliable source? All the rest said in here is based on guesswork and nothing substantive has been presented via RS to refute Coalson. At the very least if something get challenged or removed there should be something of the sort otherwise it veers into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. If you have RS in Serbian and want to present here for usage, by all means as I can read and speak the language.Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a false dilemma. It's not that simple, because Coalson and Radio Free Europe probably wouldn't claim that they are infallible at all times. My concerns about this remain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Still something substantive in the form of RS sources has not been produced here to show that Coalson is infallible. That's all i'm asking for. This is an encyclopedia project that uses RS sources for its composition. Anyone, even me can go with gut feelings on many topics. In the end if an editor opposes something without something substantive, that in itself is not a reason to keep something out of the article. An editor would need show how using RS sources as to why that is in the talkpage. Look around on the net. There might be something out there. If something isn’t produced here via RS in coming days to refute Coalson, the sentence will be restored.Resnjari (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrase literally originated from a copypasta where a Turkish user from Krautchan was making fun of ultra nationalist serbian users salty about the balkan conflict and stuff like Republika Sprska. The original text, which mocked serbians' english as "subpar" glorifyied "Serbia" at the same time it alludes its military supremacy being on the horses the boskianks could not take away from them, as well as some other made up nonsense like a fabricated claim that Tupac was alive in Serbia. It originally went down like this it makes no sense and it's not in serbian because it was coined by a Turkish user in an english speaking image board.

"REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt

tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey" 2601:646:8081:3910:1480:56A7:CCD2:EDB9 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice horrible article

This is the least neutral Wikipedia page I've ever seen, someone who knows nothing about this or anything surrounding it would read this and think this is some horrible hateful thing used by "alt-right nationalist white supremacists" or whatever as some serious symbol, when it's just a meme used by tons of random people because it's just funny, the New Zealand guy used this and a billion other things just to mess with people who try to look deep into this stuff, how did that even work, who made this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.34.94.226 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? X-Editor (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

https://harvardpolitics.com/the-alt-right-as-counterculture-memes-video-games-and-violence/

From the article it is obvious that while it started as a satrical joke, it was only later that it was adopted by the Alt-right.

Quotes from this article: "While many innocent people have participated in the meme since its original intentions to parody racism, it is clear now that the meme has lost its original intentions."

" A Turkish internet user famously parodied the racist incoherence of Serbian nationalists through a satirical rant that ended by just repeating the phrase. But the meme soon lost its original ironic purpose."

"For instance, a group of reddit communities that I help moderate based around the aforementioned Paradox Games decided to ban the ‘remove kebab’ meme after the Christchurch shooting. As an American Muslim involved in the community where the ‘remove kebab’ meme was most popular, it was shocking to see a phrase I myself had used be associated in acts of violence." ShotoKye (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)