Talk:Novi Plamen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I discover with some surprise that my name (David Graeber) is listed as an editor for this journal. This is completely untrue. I am quite sure that Chomsky and Albert have nothing to do with it as well. I think this is some sort of scam.

'Well, how do you then explain the fact that Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors?! This is a shameless accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.100.214 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the old version and it listed David Graeber as a member of Advisory Board, not as an editor. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe it did - but don't you think I would know if I'm the editorial board or not? It's pretty comical that I am telling you, myself, that I'm not on the board, I have never had any contact with these people, and every time I try to take my name off someone puts it back again. Do I have to threaten legal action? 

    David Graeber.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.141.2 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, Albert's, Graeber's and Chomsky's names are mentioned in the article on the magazine on ZNet - which is edited by Albert, and Chomsky and Graeber are its well-known contributors and Albert's well-known and close colleagues...So I doubt the authenticity of the preceeding comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.101.198 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Unedited contributors include Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montengerin writers, so the only obvious designation for the language used in the magazine would be Serbo-Croatian, and not these neo-nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" etc. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stambuk, these people write in their respective national languages (as they are presently defined), so unless you can prove they are writing in "Serbo-Croatian", please stop these and other (tendentious) edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.95.109 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these people write in their respective national languages (as they are presently defined) - so why on Earth are you marking it as a "Croatian language"? In English language, the term Serbo-Croatian is still used to refer to all of those SC varieties in general. Stop VANDALISING the article! Next time you substitute SC with Croatian I'll report you to ANI. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 10:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. Stop vandalising the article, you are well aware it is politically murderous for a magazine in Croatia to be labelled as writing in "Serbo-Croatian" due to nationalist concerns, and it is incorrect, since people in it write in their specific national languages. Your political bias is obvious - for instance - in your edits on the article about Miroslav Krleza, where you fought against the formulation that "he was proclaimed as the greatest Yugoslav writer in the 20th century", although it is common knowledge that he was, and this fact does not necessarily imply such a classification is correct. Now you impute the very things to Novi Plamen which you vehemently rejected in a situation when they were actually applicable/authentic (in the Krleza article). Stop with these political manipulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"politically murderous" ? ^_^ Well, I can see no specific language self-identification in any of the NP issues.. Now, since there are writers from B&H, Montenegro, Serbia and Yugoslav diaspora all contributing to the magazine, and none of their respective texts is "translated to Croatian" (i.e. the Croatian literary idiom of SC), it's pointless to insist on it being "Croatian language magazine" or simply "Croatian magazine".
Krleža as the greatest writer in SC - probably so (IMHO very so), but problem is that the term Yugoslav is ambiguous, and Krleža lived thru several "Yugoslavias" (even tho the term today is mostly used to refer to the SFRJ). AFAIK, Krleža was very supportive of Yugoslavism and Serbo-Croatian ethnolinguistic unity in his youth, but later (esp. after the formation of SFRJ) he saw Yugoslavism primarily as the only possible safe harbor for Croathood (and in which he was 100% correct - look at what ridiculous banana state Croatia (and B&H and Serbia..) looks today - ruled by corruptive crimogenic ex KPJ mafia spinoffs HDZ & SDP..). Some of his essays are pure Communists pamphlets, but these hardly reflect his intimate thoughts he delicately promoted in his written artistic works. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 11:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no specific language identification in the magazine, including no specific identification for "Serbo-Croatian". I tend to agree it might be necessary to add Serbian and Bosnian as languages used in the magazine, but not "Serbo-Croatian", especially since this term isn't used any more to denote languages used in the Western Balkans. Regarding Krleza, you again fail to distinguish the fact he was proclaimed the greatest Yugoslav writer, irrespective of the validity of this classification. As it stands, that article fails to establish the regional importance and - more importantly - regional supremacy of Krleza's literary production, whose literary quality and importance transcends small Croatia and is truly international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.222.142 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree it might be necessary to add Serbian and Bosnian as languages used in the magazine, but not "Serbo-Croatian", especially since this term isn't used any more to denote languages used in the Western Balkans - Rubbish. That term is still abundantly used by all the prominent English (British and American) Slavists to refer to the same dialectal base of Neoštokavian. Don't trust the rubbish pseudoscientific lies published by Matica hrvatska.
Re Krleža - such "proclamations" are all representive of a particular PoV. There are many folks who would disagree to have Krlaže as the greatest Yugoslav writer. Krleža's writings do not "transcend" Croatia as they were almost completely focused on it. He called himself "the most Croatian writer of his knowledge". I mean, what's left to add? --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Matica hrvatska is beside the point here. Current mainstream classifications for these languages are "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Bosnian", definitely not Serbo-Croat. Wikipedia functions on the basis of established scientific norms, not fringe theories. Regarding Krleza, I was just making a claim about Krleza's perception, we're discussing different things. By the way, Krleza is in many ways universal, and definitely a regional writer as well, don't narrow him down, he would be turning in his grave if he knew you were narrowly presenting him as a "Croatian" writer, he was a cosmopolitan humanist first and foremost.

Current mainstream classifications for these languages are "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Bosnian", definitely not Serbo-Croat - rubbish, 99% of Western scholars still treat them as one and the same language. Stop believing in fabricated history of these imaginary "languages" promulgated by Matica hrvatska and Matica srpska (funny thing, 20 years ago they were singing a completely different tune...), you're just disgracing yourself. Stradard B/C/S have 99% identical grammar, 100% mutual intelligibility, Serb and Bosniak TV shows are broadcasted on Croatian TV channels without subtitles, Croatian magazines like NP publish texts Bosniak and Serb authors completely unedited... Only an idiot would think of them as "different languages". At best, different literary varieties of the same idiom/language, reflecting different cultural associations (Austro-Hungarian, Oriental-Turkish, and Greek-Russian). If you're not convinced, try reading a chapter on Serbo-Croatian written by eminent Slavist Wayles Browne (who graduated on Harvard - the best uni in the world!) in the most prominent Slavic languages monography by Corbett & Comrie : [1]. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why don't you try changing the language designations for the Croatian Globus magazine for instance, or hundreds and hundreds of other magazines, newspapers etc. in the region, none of which are characterised as "Serbo-Croatian"? If 99% of people consider it to be the same language (do please show me where you got this "fact"), why is then this designation so rare??? Croatian is the official language of Croatia (and Serbian is the official language of Serbia), not Serbo-Croat. Your political intentions against Novi Plamen are made clear by your ludicrous characterisation of Novi Plamen as a "Yugoslav magazine", which is a despicable attempt to marginalise the magazine. Stop with your politically inspired sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.201.69 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've sent them an e-mail and they they claim: ne radi se o "srpsko-hrvatskom", nego o tekstovima na hrvatskom, srpskom, bosanskom itd. [..] ..je prema tome najtocnije, ukoliko su vec nuzne takve klasifikacije, okarakterizirati casopis kao hrvatski sa interesom za regionalna zbivanja i procese. U svakom slucaju nismo "jugoslavenski" casopis, niti zazivamo obnovu Jugoslavije.. Pussies :p I sincerely doubt that most of the contributors have similar views on the matter, but whatever.
Anyhow, as opposed to Globus and other magazines you mention: they have >99% of content by Croatian writers so it's not a valid comparison.
We just need to make sure that once they invent another imaginary language "Montengrin" in a few months, we put that too on the list :p --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements[edit]

The article has been substantially expanded, with quite numerous mainstream newspaper and TV sources, including references to some TV shows which directly discuss the journal, as well as several laudatory articles devoted to the journal and published in a leading Croatian and Serbian daily newspaper.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novi_Plamen&oldid=1180629275"