Talk:Prizren

Note for Nikola

It's preferable to say that Prizen "fell" rather than "was reclaimed". I'm using "fell" in the sense given by Collins English Dictionary: "to yield to attack: the city fell under the assault." Using "was reclaimed" is stretching a point, given the 450 year gap. It's also POV, given that there's clearly a dispute about the claimed rights of ownership. I deliberately used "fell" as a neutral term which says nothing about either side's claims of ownership. -- ChrisO 17:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that is enough. Now whenever you can't have it your way, you're resorting to telling us that we don't speak English good enough. "Fell" is too emotional. Nikola 06:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Emotional" in what way? The city was ruled by the Ottomans and it surrendered to the Serbs during a war between the two sides. That's a statement of fact, nothing more. -- ChrisO 08:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Fell" implies the way in which it surrendered. Nikola 10:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not casting aspersions on your command of English, I'm trying to explain why I used a particular term and backing that up with the dictionary definition so that you don't have any reason to think that I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes. -- ChrisO 09:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and each time using different dictionary for the purpose. Nikola 10:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Official website of Municipality of Prizren

The website of the Municipality of Prizren is official. These governmental bodies have been elected by a free and democratic vote on elections accepted by the international community to be free and fair. Do you have a problem with that?

Does it matter who finances the website? Soros can and it does provide financial assistance to the official free and democratic institutions around the world.

Nikola, get real, would you like Serbian websites from Belgrade to be the official websites of the Kosovar municipalities? --Kosovar 17:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should put this on the first Talk page of the page you reverted.

As I said, nothing on any of these sites indicates that they are official; an official site practiaclly always has text "Official site of ..." written somewhere prominently. Neither of these sites do. When one enters one of these sites, he is taken to city history. The site has a sidebar which leads to various data about the city but nowhere says that any of it is official. Most prominently linked at the top of the site are links about some "Delta Project". "About" link says "The Municipality of Prizren was competitively selected for participation in the 'Developing Enterprises Locally Through Alliance and Action' (DELTA) project, which aims to enhance municipal capacities for SME Development. DELTA is a joint initiative of the World Bank Group and the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), which is a network program of the Open Society Institute (OSI)." To me, this seems like a clear indication that this is a site of the Delta Project's branch in Prizren.

And of course, if I encounter a website of a Serbian government of a municipality, I will include it. Nikola 10:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think you're right. But the simplest way of finding out is to ask, so I've done that - I'll let you know what they say. -- ChrisO 11:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Every single website has the official logo of the municipality at the top of the webpage, together with the name of the municipality. I thought the logo serves like an official stamp, right?

No. There are a lot of web pages about cities in Serbia which have city coat of arms but are completely unofficial. Heck, city pages on Wikipedia oftenly have coats of arms and they are all unofficial. Nikola 03:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that www.unmikonline.org is not the official website of UNMIK because if does not say "The Official ..."? How about the Kosovo Assembly, is that not official? Or the Prime Minister's website? They are not official because they don't have the words "The Official...", whereas the official stamps and logos are irrelevant, is this what you are trying to say?

No. But in addition to having UNMIK's seal, that website has news from UNMIK, information about UNMIK as a political organisation, and offers official UNMIK documents for download. Most importantly, it doesn't have large bar at the top with information about some random group. Nikola 03:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Riinvest and Soros have invited municipalities to create business project to aid the development of small and medium interprises, and 7 municipalities with the best programs have received funding, including financal support for designing and running website of the municipalities. These are the official websites of the municipalities, where in addition to information about municipalities, they also present the business project and credit Riinvest and Soros for their financial support.

Do you know that, or are just guessing? Nikola 03:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If these were Delta project branches, they would be called "Delta Prizren" and not "Komuna Prizren" (Municipality of Prizren). Obviously, komuna means municipality.

Well, then perhaps these are branches of Delta project in the Municipality of Prizren. The URL doesn't indicate anything. Nikola 03:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To summarise, the idea is, if a municipality prepares good projects, Riinvest and Soros would provide financal support for municipalities to set-up their own website and publish those projects along with other information. However, these project belong to the municipalities, together with the information that they publish about themselves. Soros did nor prepare those projects, municipalities did.

Anyhow, I look forward to hearing from ChrisO. Everything should be clearified then. Kosovar 14:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The official name of KOSOVA is KOSOVA/ KOSOVO and not Kosova and Metohija. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.131.168 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Demography

HRE, how about you provide some source for your demographic numbers? Until then, I will have to remove this unusually biased number. It is like triple amount of Serbs to Albanians. Ilir pz 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Could you say why you removed the entire section? (including the 2001 estimate).

However, I must first hear if you are willing to accept this? I mean, do you accept that Prizren was built by the Serbs to a certain amount of time majorily inhabited by them? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a work written by Doctor Joseph Müller in German in Prague, 1844. Albanien, Rumelien und die Österreichisch-montenegrinische Gränze. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Now really, you read pro-Serbian history, and I read the history that Albanian historians wrote. According to what I read your speculations above are just propaganda war Serbian regime used to justify the occupation of back then Kosovo province. It does not seem to me to be realistic that Prizren was inhabited by 70% Serbs. It just doesn't. I will check for more info on that, but until then I will really have to ask for stronger evidence. Doctor Joseph Müller might have just been made up. You know my attitude about historical evidence.Ilir pz 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I strictly read from international historians. But please, you conote that everithing that Serbian rulers in the history did by some justifying of what they were supposed to do. That's really harsh. And no, that's not regarding the city. That's regarding the entire District - western Kosovo (Metohija) was split into three Disctricts, two were majorily Serbian - Peja and Prizreni, while Djakove was mostly Albanian. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded harsh. But the references I see around, from Serbian editors, are just unbelievable...like those from High school books, terrible. I want to believe you read from international historians only, and expect that you cite only them when you write in the historical articles. As a starter, find me an international source, citing Doctor Joseph Müller" please. And how relevant his observations are, where did he get those data (which are conflicting with the history that I read, big time). Which international source says Peja and Prizreni were majorily Serbian districts? Ilir pz 14:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the history section

Firstly, it implies that the City was seized by Serbia in 1912 - which it wasn't.

Who ruled Kosovo once the Albanian uprisals of 1910-12 were crushed by Ottoman forces? That is the end of First Balkan war, I think Kosovo was seized by Serbia in 1912. Actually Serbs seized even Northern Albania, that is why the London Conference was called. That is what some Serbian historians say even [1]Ilir pz 14:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, it states that the City was handed over to Bulgaria in 1916 - although I don't deny this possibility, I have never heard of it before and couldn't find anything regarding it.

Thirdly, it said that the Serbian forces regained control in October 1918 when the Central Powers were in full retreat from southern Serbia - implying that the city was a part of Serbia.

well, as it was seized previously in the first Balkan war, the city was a "part" of Serbia as a result. Maybe this citation could help "In 1915, the Western allies, in the secret Pact of London, agreed to divide Albania between Greece and Italy leaving only a small autonomous state in the central region. Austria-Hungarian and Bulgarian troops moved into Kosovo. The Serb armies were beaten decisively and in what is known as " The Great Serbian Retreat" made a disastrous trek across Kosovo and the snow- covered mountains of Albania. The army was accompanied by thousands of Serb civilians who were terrified by what they had heard about the fate of Belgium at the hands of the Axis powers. The best estimate is that 100,000 Serbs lost their lives during this grueling retreat. Kosovo was occupied by Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. Many Kosovar Albanians joined the Austria- Hungarian army. Albanian language schools were opened to undermine the Serbian presence. After the tide of battle turned against Austria-Hungary in 1918 the Serb army took revenge massacring women and children and destroying homes. In retaliation guerilla warfare against the Serbs was relentless.

The peace treaties of 1919-1920 established a Yugoslav state with the name "The Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs". The name was shortly changed to Yugoslavia. Included in the Kingdom, which was a constitutional monarchy, beside those mentioned above were Bosnia- Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia. Kosovo was again an integral part of Serbia. The Kingdom was comprised of 12 million people, of whom 400,000 were Albanian. It was overwhelmingly a Slavic state. In contrast 64% of the population of Kosovo was Albanian, and of these three-quarters were Muslim. The Kingdom was governed from Belgrade."[2]Ilir pz 14:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. - there's an extra spacing at the right beginning of the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The old city name it was Theranda paralel with Ulpiana they was the most knowit citys in Kosovo area. During the Ottoman this city it was called Kaza e Prizrenit and Nahia e Prizrenit. The Ottoman L dialect of Prizreni (Prizrenqe) it was spoked in the region of old provine Dardania, Sofia and around the old province. This dialect is till today a live is a mixed albanian, turkish and arabian L. The peopel of Gorani they mixed bugarian, albanian, turkish and arabian L. Today they speek mostly serbian from the school and at home they user the islamic terms in serbian L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.181.92.223 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I discussed on irc with several Administrators that it's wrong to allow moderators to exclude anyone they want from the project, it looks like "owning" - which is Wikipedia against; I suggest a removal of that. Does every participant agree? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir,

1. Well yes, the Serbs did seize Albanian territories around Skadar, but Serbia's forces might have assisted in advances towards Prizren - Serbia did not conquer Prizren in 1912. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2. I just verified that it was handed over to the Bulgarian Tsardom in 1916. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Exactly; Serbs, Serb Armies, Serb civilians - but nowhere Serbia. Additionally, Prizren couldn't have been a part of Serbia since the 1918/1919 formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, since Serbia wasn't independent, but a constituent territory of the Kingdom of SHS. Additionally, the territory of Serbia did not include Prizren in 1918/1919-1929 (Kingdom's lasting). --HolyRomanEmperor 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo what do you mean, Serbs, Serb armies but not Serbia? that is an odd comment. Ilir pz 15:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prizren joined Serbia at the end of 1918, but since the formation of the Kingdom, it has been returned to the restored entity of Montenegro. It became Serbia's again only when the Chetniks and Partisans liberated it in 1944. Do you understand, Ilir? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were refering to the Montenegro... --HolyRomanEmperor 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Messy history :))) Thanks for the clarification, HRE. Ilir pz 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hre there is need for major reordering and cutting unnecessary details of history. With all due respect, you added far too many details, which if I were a foreigner I would not care to know about Prizren. And worse, you cited nothing even though you added massive parts of text. Expecting some citations before I decide to cut parts. I need your agreement on this Ilir pz 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does this mean?

Prizren (Albanian Prizren/Prizreni, Serbian: Призрен/Prizren) is a historic city located in a United Nations-administered territory of Kosovo, but factually under the Provisional Self-Government)

This is completely opaque to somebody not familiar with the political situation in Kosovo already. Does this need to be in the intro? Wouldn't it make more sense to include the fact that it is de jure part of Serbia than this business about the United Nations or the Provisional Self-Government? john k 15:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

-- You're right. The entire territory of Kosovo is UN-"administered," but in the entry, it sounds like only that area is controlled by UNMIK and the PISG. Tonercl 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Cheryl T

"Instruments of the Serbian occupatory regime", "key positions oppressing Albanians"

"Most of the feared revenge from Albanian population, because most of the were instruments of the Serbian occupatory regime, and were in key positions oppressing Albanians, and taking over their work positions"

Unless this is backed up with some solid reference, it looks like blatant POV bordering on hate speech. 83.65.242.73 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unitet Naticion Law in Kosovo and Wikipedia

Before two years, I have presented the argument. In thate time it was clear, thate, Serbia with or without Kosovo, is going to be part of Europe Card for citys names. And Europ Card for citys names (komuna) is adopted from Kosovar Govermend. My dier friends in English Wikipedia, you are maken not a litel problem, but with all information, you are changen the oficial names of the citys in Kosovo.

You have taket the Serbial Law or some imagenedet rouls, als more importen thane UN Law. English Wikipedia is not working/existing under the Serbian Law, but under UN Law. Don´t be wondering if somebody is acusing the English Wikipedia for anti-UN propaganda and "spaming" desinformation to the internet iusers.

The mandat of UN in Kosovo is hight livel thane Serbian Law - witch since the UNMIK is in Kosovo, dont exist anymore for Kosovo.

1. You are working agains the Kosovo Law
2. You are working agains the Europen Card for city names
3. You are working agains the UNMIK - Law
4. You are working agains the UN - Law

The LAW of Kosovo, Eropen, UNMIK and UN, thate I have presented here before two years nobady diden respect.

Becose of this I acuse you for desinformations and working aganis this LAWS, and with you works here you are helping to destabisate the sitution in Balkan. DON SAY THAT YOUR HANDS ARE CLEAR, DONT BE PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVAT THE PRIMITIV PEOPEL, PLEASE REPECT THE UN - LAW

THE SYS. AND ADMINISTRATORS OF ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA HAVE RESPOSIBLITI TO STOP MAKEN WIKIPEDIA AS PART OF PROPAGANDA WITCH MOTIVATE PRIMITIV PEOPEL.

SINCE 2 YEARS, ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA WITH NOT RESPECTING THE UN LAW, IS HELPING IN DESTABILSATION OF THE BALKAN REGION. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.183.85 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

hhjkdshhlkjulkmanxıuç.ömoyhpomcxjtmad8789jklmoıy89wy7aR56DWUIEYŞWRKYOGYw985r8wrkyhlkdfahut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.186.120.95 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkish is an offical language in Prizren

So the article should include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.207.65 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Two pictures showing "serbian suffering"

I believe it is not fair that of all the pictures in the page, two of them show destroyed Serbian houses and churches. That is like only 10% of all the destruction and killings in the city. Almost 30% of the city was burned down by Serbian Forces during the war. It is only fair if we would leave out the war, or at leas put both pictures of Albanian and Serbian houses in Prizren. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave behind the war and concentrate on the future like culture, economy etc. Don't be surprised, like always there was and still is a tendency on making all Kosovo-related articles biased and create the illusion that there is still a war going on here. Thank you. kedadial 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

May be, but we should never leave behind the war. Those are lost and destroyed Serbian property and churches, so regarding NPOV, those must be here. And it is very rude to write "serbian suffering" like that. You make a mockery of all those Serbs that are expelled and killed in Prizren. Those two will stay there. Specially "Church of Holy Salvation". If Albanians destroyed sacred XIV century monument, they must live with it. And Wiki, as international encyclopedia, will show that. 89.216.194.103 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we have to show some 30 pictures of Prizren on 1999 how it looked like and you will get the idea.

"we should never leave behind the war" -Don't get me wrong on this, as I wasn't saying to forget it but just to focus on the future, the past will make us go backwards, and I know that going backwards is the goal of some editors here on wikipedia. For me personally, is impossible to forget the war because I've lost family members. Thank you. kedadial 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the "serbian suffering" thing. But still, If Wikipedia wants to be neutral we should add information about "Albanian suffering" too! Like burned down Albanian houses, although it would be better if there would be only two pictures like that, one showing Serbian damaged property, and second showing an Albanian one. I am talking about neutrality. Here is a picture of League of Prizren destroyed. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, i agree with that. Just find some good picture, and we will change other one, with "destroyed Serbian property in Prizren". Tadija (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits.

Picture is off, as agreed. All other is now in order... Tadija (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to agree there have to be more than one agreeing. There is no reason to remove the text about Pjetër Bogdani, the references are there. On the other hand, if you want to put the other version of Prizren name, please do no push it, let's discuss, these are all theories, non of them is a fact. So we can put both alternatives, but you will have to remove the forum reference and maybe give a NPOV RS as WP requires. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

THAT'S not forum reference, whats wrong with you!? I dont want to tell same things over and over again! That reference is part of the book by Mirjana Detelić: Градови у хришћанској и муслиманској епици, Belgrade, 2004, ISBN 86-7179-039-8. And all of those site are ONLY in albanian. They have some links, but that is fake, so there are no english page on those sites. So, these are ONLY in Albanian. And, ok, we will keep disputed Pjeter text. Tadija (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija, when making such changes, it is preferred to discuss first. You added two references, one of them is from a forum the other one is from a Serbian book (which does not make it invalid per se, but in disputed and complex issues like this it does require to be verified - It is in Serbian, I cannot find nor verify it). Please read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. I think that we should add that view also, but you will have to find more sources on that. Please do not RV again, or I will have to report you on 3RR violation. Instead, try to find a better source. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As for 1689:

WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SERBIAN ONE:

The City was taken by the end of the 17th century by Austrian and collaborating Serbian armed forces, but the Ottomans subsequently restored control over it, leading to a mass exodus of its Eastern Orthodox population - among who over 20,000 were Serbs.

AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ALBANIAN ONE:

The city was taken in 1689 by the Austrian Army in collaboration with Pjetër Bogdani, Albanian Archibishop of Shkup (Skopje) who organized five thousand Albanian fighters (muslim and catholic), while serbian Patriarch chose an easier way by escaping to Serbia and taking with him Serbian and some Albanian orthodox population . But the Ottomans subsequently restored control over it. Pjetër Bogdani body was digged out from his grave - he died getting sick by plage while he was taking care of Austrian general in Prishtina - and his body was thrown to dogs by Ottomans.

I think we could add both of them. Though the Serbian One should be backed by references, until then we could add a CN at the end. This seems to be a fair version:

According to Malcolm, the city was taken in 1689 by the Austrian Army in collaboration with Pjetër Bogdani, Albanian Archibishop of Shkup (Skopje) who organized five thousand Albanian fighters (muslim and catholic), while serbian Patriarch chose an easier way by escaping to Serbia and taking with him Serbian and some Albanian orthodox population . But the Ottomans subsequently restored control over it. Pjetër Bogdani body was digged out from his grave - he died getting sick by plage while he was taking care of Austrian general in Prishtina - and his body was thrown to dogs by Ottomans.

Other sources claim that by the end of the 17th century the City was taken by Austrian and collaborating Serbian armed forces, but the Ottomans subsequently restored control over it, leading to a mass exodus of its Eastern Orthodox population - among who over 20,000 were Serbs.

If everyone agrees I will edit this! —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You ONLY want to delete real origin of the Prizren name. Eric Hamp. According to Eric Hamp. SOURCE?? There are none of them. I dont want to say all over again same things, just google the Призрѣнь, and you will see. That forum of yours is BOOK PART. It is part from that book! It is internationally published. Also, compare with Czech Přízřenice. Even now, word prizren can be translated in Serbian. It can not in Albanian. And that POV disgusting edit of albanian version of 17th century will not be there. If we cannot agree, then it is better not to have it at all! If Eric Hamp words are ok, then why Basil II in his documents write Призрѣнь? At the end, eric is member of Albanian Academy of Sciences, so that source is disputable also. I will not let you to push you pro-albanian ideas. You will not hide the history, and more than millennium of Serbian existence there. Today is other thing, but history is Serbian.

When you find some sources of that, eric hamp theory can be returned. Tadija (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tadija, please try to assume a good faith. The material was removed as the reference was not valid. It was written by a Serbian author. On the other hand, Hamp is considered a reliable source, read WP:RS. And please let's not turn every discussion into a forum. We could add that also. Just find a better source. And before RV try to discuss first, it is really important that we agree on things first. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, while i find some MORE sources, we can leave it like this... Tadija (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

References for the name

Wile I would like to enrich the page Prizren, there is a real concern about the references used. Please try not to make any changes until a verifiable reference is found. On the other hand, it is preferable when two different thesis are brought forward, forms like is, are to be replaced by there are claims or some sources point. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Except one thesis is real and long lasting, and other in NEWBORN. Those two are not identical. And when you place some sources point, then some ideas from international foreigners are hand by hand with old and dogmatic truths. There is no worse thing then democracy. And, luckily, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Tadija (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but POV pushing is a fundamental WP policy. BTW do not forget your 3RR Warning that I requested, it has been observed that the references were not verifiable. —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The URL that Tadija provided for this reference, Mirjana Detelić: Градови у хришћанској и муслиманској епици, Belgrade, 2004, ISBN 86-7179-039-8, does not work. It appears to be a CD-ROM rather than a book, and it seems to be held by one or two American libraries, so it probably exists. Its ISBN is shared by another unrelated book, so the ISBN can't be trusted. Since we cannot read this work online, the only way to know what facts it verifies is through a person who has access to it. Tadija, do you have access to this CD-ROM, and do you know what is in it? EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great, but even then, it is somehow fallacious to claim that it is the only explanation for the name. So I the reference is found, it would be better if the paragraph would start something like Other sources claim... or Another explanation for the name.... It is copy-editing issue, I know, but still! —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have it, but i have the book, not CD-ROM? Dont know what is that about CD-ROM, maybe some other edition? The main book is caled Epski Gradovi (Serbian: Epic Towns). That source that i found on forum is exception from the book. At the end, information about Prizren name origin can be found in two other books, at least! That are from foreign authors. Tadija (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with this source? Why is it constantly deleted? There are few sources on this, there are no need to delete information. Pagliaccioknows (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Epski Gradovi? Can anyone bring a source NOT of a Serbian author that we CAN verify? --Kreshnik25 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)