Talk:Serbia/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Flag

The article is displaying the wrong flag. The STATE flag of Serbia has a coat-of-arms on it, while the national flag doesn't. All the other countries have national flags displayed, shouldn't it be like that here too? Source: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=5412

Yes, this is article about state, and state flag is displayed. --Pockey 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should re-think about it. Serbian case is not unique, as many other countries have different "state flag" and "popular flag". For example, see Flag of Austria, Flag of Norway etc—it is much more common to use the "popular flag" as the "main one"—as it is normally the more famous variant. Duja 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but you will see which flag will be displayed on some sports game between Serbia and some other country. I think that it will be state flag of Serbia. --Pockey 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a "common flags guideline". :) Aesthetically it looks odd to have a flag with the coat of arms, right next to the same coat of arms, but if it really is much the more common flag, fair enough. (Though equally it would be an option to use national flag + CoA in the infobox, and state flag in the body of the article as an extra illo.) And talking of the national arms... why the flip-flopping between two seemingly-near-identical images thereof? Alai 04:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Re flip-flopping: we are Serbs, ergo my version is always better than yours :-). Duja 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Re the commonality: I'm not sure what was the intent of the legislators. In most (all?) other countries, "popular" flag has a kind of precedence in the sense of national representation everywhere but on highly official levels. I agree with Pockey, though, that the version with arms has bigger presence in media (for no apparent reason to me, except that the situation is new in Serbia so people are not quite aware of intended usage)... and for the reason that we are Serbs so we have to be different :-)). Duja 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The popularity of the be-escutcheon'd version doesn't surprise me in the least; it's much more distinctive than the other, especially given the large number of other states in the region whose flag is some-permutation-of red, white and blue horizontal stripes.
I really prefer the coat of arms that doesn't look like it's made of plastic, but what can you do... :) --estavisti 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
!&* mi sve, they look identical, at least on my Firefox 1.5.0.3. Is it your browser or...? I prefer SVG version for better scalability, but I don't see a big deal. Duja 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is obsolete subject, the "Serbia and Montenegro" signs were abandoned when Serbia pronounced it's independence. Jovke 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbia - country or republic?

I realize Serbia is a republic and still in a state union with CG. However, isn't it also a country (just one that is in a state union with another country)?Osli73 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It'll be moot in two days, I heard Montenegro will declare independence this Saturday.--estavisti 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, you are aware that: Country > Republic? Every single republican country on this planet is a COUNTRY. The term "country" is just used to identify an area of land with established leaders, a capital, a government and a population and whatnot. Mehicdino 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox

It has been put in for the following reasons:

  1. Sick of seeing the old one.
  2. Serbia and Montenegro have functioned as independent states for several years, and had de facto separate foreign policies (two track EU negotiations). The Netherlands Antilles are considered worthy of a country infobox, althouh they are "an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands". So Serbia (and Montenegro) having the country infobox should be OK. After all, the existence of the State Union (only another 2 days anyway) implies the members are states.

That's it. --estavisti 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the date - at the earliest we should be dating it from today (June 3) - but not a moment before Montenegro makes its declaration, or maybe from next week when Serbia formally declares independence. May 21 is simply not appropriate. As regards to 'state', although I'm not going to remove the country infobox, I note that the members of the United States are called that as well. Morwen - Talk 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Should Edit

Serbia is no longer a part of the now non-existent State Union, as stated on the Main Page and in most news outlets. The history section, in particular, should show this.

Strictly speaking, I believe that Serbia is in fact now the sole member of the State Union BovineBeast 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. It is a completely new country, just like Montenegro. The referedum dissolved the union, thus resulting in two new states, not just Montenegro.Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Constitutional Charter speaks of 'breaking away' rather than 'dissolving', and is rather unclear on the matter. BovineBeast 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it's unclear, the Constitutiona Charter speaks of successor of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, meaning that Union ceasted to exist. Anyway, today Serbian Parlament accepted a declaration, that transfers all the jurisdiction from former Union to Republic of Serbia, and at same time, flags of former Union have been removed from goverment buildings, marking that there is no more State Union, and therefor Serbia is not the sole member of the State Union, but defacto a independant state.

Independence

Why the date of independence is July 13, 1878? It is the worst solution we can use here. Serbia was independent in the Medieval Ages long before 1878. Either we should use the first date of the independence of (medieval) Serbia, either last one (June 3, 2006). PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but isn't that the last time Serbia has officially declared independence from something greater it was a member of? Technically, today's Serbia is the legally successor of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Yugoslavia, Federal Yugoslavia, and "Serbia and Montenegro", never declearing indipendence from anything: the other parts ot the old yugoslavian state are the ones which separated.
For example: would you state that the current-day United Kingdom is a new independant state from the old one following 1 July 1997 when Hong Kong became chinese? Gbnogkfs 4 June 2006, 10:48 (UTC)
Well, I just saw a similar article, notably Russia, since Russia is regarded as successor of the Soviet Union. The article claim that Russia became independent in 1990, no matter that it is successor of the state from which it declared independence. In fact Serbia will tomorrow (On June 5) to declare that it taking competences from the state union, thus this is date we can use. PANONIAN (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the view of the UN and the international community was that the FRY was not the successor to SFRY - a position that the FRY refused to accept. This is why it was denied UN membership: because it refused to re-apply. Have a look at [1] for the opinion of the Arbitration Committee on this subject (obviously not our ArbCom though ;) Morwen - Talk 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Gbnogkfs: last time Serbia formally declared independence was this afternoon. :) I think that this date should also be mentioned in the infobox. Like Russia, for example, has been indepent for its first time way before Serbia. Still, its article mentions 1991 as the date of independence. Why should Serbia be an exception? Maybe we could have the independence box similar to the one on Estonia, where multiple dates are mentioned... Serbia has not been independent all through 1878 to 2006, so the other dates must also be mentioned. I'd support making it similar to Russia, like PANONIAN said. HJV 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, you got it all wrong! That day was said to be independence day because Serbia was acknowledged to be independent by the two most powerful european empires of that time: Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian. Before the Ottoman rule, Serbia was indeed completely independent, but that was roughly from VII to XIV century when there was no such thing as "official acknowledgement". Jovke 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now we'll have to change all the maps that dont include the border between Serbia and Montenegro

This is more widely discussed on: Talk:Montenegro/Archive_1#Now_we.27ll_have_to_change_all_the_maps_that_dont_include_the_border_between_Serbia_and_Montenegro.--Greasysteve13 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
LocationSerbia.png
LocationSanMarino.png
LocationLiechtenstein.png
LocationMonaco.png

--Greasysteve13 09:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Groan! This will take years. I think that every EU country, some further east and south, the EU and NATO maps and all the world maps will need to be changed.--Zhengfu 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
And then more fun if/when Kosovo becomes independent! ;) BovineBeast 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You could just make a dotted line around ex-Yugoslavia and call it "Obscure Bunch of Balkan Countries", and change the map in 20 years' time when they've calmed down...HJV 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Samo sloga srbina spasava

I removed the "unofficial" moto of "Samo sloga srbina spasava". I think we were there before; the country does not have an official moto, period — this one is too controversial to be universaly accepted, even among Serbs themselves, let alone numerous minorities. At best, it could be mentioned as motto of Serbs, but can anyone recall a government official which uttered those words publicly? That goes in the same basket to Three-finger salute (Serbian). Duja 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For whom is it controversial? People might not like it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the popular motto of Serbia. It doesn't matter that a government official hasn't ever used it. Have you ever heard of "Honi soit qui mal y pense" or "Dieu et mon droit"? No UK official ever "uses" them (however you "use" a motto), nor do many Brits (the few that have even heard of these two mottos). By comparison, Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava has huge popular support, and is even represented (as popularly but errouneously believed) on the national flag. Even the people who don't like it recognise its status as an unofficial national motto. I see no problem with putting it in the infobox and noting that it's unofficial. --estavisti 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is popular motto of Serbs, not Serbia, and you san put it on article about Serbs because only Serbs use it anywhere. It is most important that government used it or not. This motto has never used officialy and we can't say that this is motto of Republic of Serbia. This motto also can be motto of Republika Srpska if we think like you. --Pockey 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And Serbia is the nation state of the Serbs, with various minorities who are also citizens. Surely, then, the motto of the Serbs is relevant, especially as it's so widespread. It may not be official, but the motto of Serbia is, de facto, Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava. Also, I reject your last point. Of course Republika Srpska can be said to have the same motto. It's a Serb entity with 90% of its population Serb. So what? That has no bearing on what we're discussing - whether to include the popular motto of Serbia in the article. --estavisti 11:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, motto of Serbia can be Živela Srbija!, Volim Srbiju!, or Srbija do Tokija!. You must put specific source that Serbia have its motto. Whitout that this article can not contain so called Motto of Serbia. --Pockey 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And Serbia is state of all citizens of Serbia, not only Serbs. There is about 65% of Serbs in Serbia. This motto is used mostly by Serbian nationalists. You don't have proof that this sentence is the Motto of Serbia. Wrong informations can't be on Wikipedia. --Pockey 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Although "Samo sloga Srbina spasava" is widely used, it's not really what we are looking for. It's not on national amblems, nor is it mentioned in any documents etc. A solid national motto is probably American e pluribus unum or French liberté, égalité, fraternité. What I propose is that we use: Motto: no official one with a footnote. Otherwise, SSSS is as official as "smrt fašizmu" or "ajmo, ajde, svi u napad". --dcabrilo 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm seing the Flag and Coat of Arms of Serbia (see the CCCC simbols) i think we can see the motto "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava" as an real motto. It's used by many Serbs....in the years against the wars between the Ottomans too. This is an very old motto. Mostly used by Serbs of course.

Reading this arguments of Pokrajac where stands: "And Serbia is state of all citizens of Serbia, not only Serbs. There is about 65% of Serbs in Serbia. This motto is used mostly by Serbian nationalists. You don't have proof that this sentence is the Motto of Serbia".

In all countries of the world are minoritys of some people. That is maybe their land too but watch France. They have around (some unknown) percent of muslims and still the motto of this land is Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. This motto comes from the Francais revolution. You can compare it with the resurrection of the Serbs against the Ottomans.

SerbiaAndMontenegro 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can understand your wish for putting motto in article but as Dcabrilo said it's not on national amblems, nor is it mentioned in any documents. You must give some source (document) where we can see this sentence is motto of Serbia. --Pockey 10:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a good sight at the following link and emblem: [[2]]. This is an national emblem of Serbia and its also used at the Coat Of Arms and at the Serbian flag. What do you see in the shield of that two Eagles? CCCC= Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava :).

They won't place CCCC at their Coat Of Arms and their flag if it wasn't the motto of Serbia.

I will search some documents to prove if i can but im not sure i will find some documents. But these reasons (above) may be enough to place the motto CCCC at the Serbia wikipedia page. SerbiaAndMontenegro 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This CCCC on shield, my friend, is not SSSS :). It is four ocilo's (sr. ocilo or ognjic). Please read this (SR) document where you will find explanation of Serbian Coat of Arms. Also, you can read article about Serbian CoA here. Regards, --Pockey 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "Само слога Србина спасава" is kind of backronym – the original coat of arms certainly wasn't made with that idea in mind. Duja 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SSSS of "Samo sloga srbina spasava" is many times used (not seriously) as "Srbin srbina sekirom sece", or "Samo slanina sarmu spasava", so it lost it's true meaning. ---Adamantum---

Republic changed to country

I changed of the first sentence from landlocked republic to country in recognition that Serbia was declared independent today but that was reverted by another editor. I reverted back to country for two reasons.

1. the word country and not a description of the government form is used in most country article introductions. The name Republic of Serbia is also listed at the very start anyway.

2. Although some country articles - a minority - do used forms like republic in the case of Serbia it is better to use country now to clearly distinguish between the current status as an independent country and the former status a republic in Yugoslavia and later Serbia-Montenegro. I imagine this is the reason why non of the other articles on former Yugoslav countries use the word republic instead of country.

Country is just the clearer term and is the most widely used in such articles. Republic has had too many other meanings (besides fully sovreign republic) in Serbia's recent history to be a good alternative for simply country.

If anyone objects and prefers republic please state explain why.--Westee 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although republic is technically correct it isn't as clear as country. The latter is especially importnat now that Serbia is an independent country.Osli73 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Successor state - new section on technicalities

I think this would be good / useful to add a section on the legalities around the dissolution of SCG and to what extent Serbia will be the successor state of SCG. Would anyone be ready to do it? Do you have any good links/sources for this?

My understanding was that Serbia will be the successor state to SCG: Serbia will inherit SCGs seat at the UN, Serbia will inherit progress made in talks with the EU, Serbia will inherit all intl. agreements and treaties, Serbia will, until an agreement has been arrived at, inherit SCGs national debt and foreign assets (such as embassies and the like). However, I don't have any good sources/links for this. Osli73 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC says basically the same thing [3]. --Delirium 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Debt was already divided some time ago - when Montenegro economic and monetary affarirs were separated from Serbian such. The SiM union has only 5 ministeries - military, foreign, human and minority rights, internal&external economic. The last two were only assisting dublicate institutions in the republics themselfs (both were negotiating separate WTO memberships, EU uses twin-track approch in most aspects of SAA negotiations). So the dissolution will mean the following: transfering human rights to a respective institutions in both republics; dividing up military - depending on territorial location (of assets) and nationality (of soldiers) - this process was already advanced (eg. practicaly Montenegrins serving in Montenegro, Serbs - in Serbia); establishing of Foreign Affairs ministeries in both republics (it looks like Montenegro already has one) and dividing SiM property abroad (mostly diplomatic missions) - most probably property will be divided in the same ratio as debt before that was similar to the population ratio (like 6%:94%). Anyway a better place for such text is the Serbia and Montenegro article, not here... 212.36.8.100 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Independence date

Currently there are two dates - Ottoman and SiM dissolution. OK. But should it be "Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro" or "Succession of Serbia and Montenegro" or something like "Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro (successor state)"? 212.36.8.100 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why landlocked?

What is the significance of including "landlocked" in the introduction? This is already very clear from the map and only makes the text sound odd? I move to take it out. Anyone against? Osli73 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can be found on Hungary Slovakia etc. --Telex 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is normal to indicate if a country is landlocked. Politis 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how is this so essentialy pertaining to the very definition of the country, i.e. the opening sentence. Its presence elsewhere is a sort of argument indeed, but having a bad thing elsewhere is also not a reason for spreading it further. Duja 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, are you saying that you object to 'landlocked' because it is a "bad thing"? How can a geographical location have an ethical dimention? Politis 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What I think he means is that the people who are putting it think it's some sort of bad thing. It's hardly a defining characteristic of the state that it doesn't have a coastline. Do the articles on Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic etc have that fact in the very first sentence? NO. --estavisti 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I wanted to say what you said in your second sentence -- it is not a defining characteristics. OTOH, atricles on Hungary, Slovakia, etc. do have that in the very first sentence. The "bad thing" I referred to was the, in my opinion, bad style which is getting copied over and over across articles. Why aren't there also important attributes like "mountainous", "industrialized", "small", "poor", "democratic" as well? Why is only "landlocked" so big deal? Duja 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it seemed like an odd thing to say when describing Serbia. Surely there must be other, more interesting and descriptive, things to say in an introduction? Osli73 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an argument that is exclusive to Serbia. Just about every landlocked country has this term in its intro. See Czech Republic, Austria, Bolivia, Zambia to name a few random landlocked countries I could think of to verify consistency. Landlocked seems like a reasonable thing to mention in an intro - since many people reading the intro will be focused on a very general introduction to the country, and landlocked is a very general term with some widespread implications: geographically, economically, politically, for instance. Is it a defining characteristic? Well, no, but it does help to define the country. Is there ever any one term that defines a country?

Regarding the suggested attributes "mountainous", "industrialized", "small", "poor", "democratic". I suppose these are all fine terms to use in introductions, but they're far less concrete than a term like landlocked. Many countries have "mountainous" regions - but that hardly makes the entire country mountainous. And just about every country would like to consider themselves industrialized, but there are a so many different degrees to industrialization, it's hard to use it as a descriptive term. "Landlocked" isn't a term that leaves a lot to the imagination - it is comparitively much more descriptive than the others.

In my mind, "landlocked" is something that should be left in, for consistency with virtually every other landlocked country intro, and because it is a very short, concise and descriptive adjective to use for a country.

Warthog32 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, perhaps, that this is being disputed over this particular subject. I believe it is yet an issue of contention in some regions that Serbia has still not obtained access to open water, i.e. the Adriatic or Black seas... Maximilli 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Current event?

Should we remove current event tag? The referendum and independence proclamations are over, nothing new will not happen here, so why the tag is still here? PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, beacose is hapen somthing now, im Kosovo. For one-two week Serbia and Kosovo are going to be regotnesed seperet or together. Serbias status is now in question if Wojvodina wount to sepred or not. The UN-Securty countries hase disedet bun they need time to procamed thate. The futer buged and every thing alls is sepreted , Kosovo is independent in this case (this judical agreemend was disedet and from each said acceptet). Putin is saying thate Kosovo is the presidencian case. China is agree with thate.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is not part of Serbia

Till the discussion in Wien is not over Kosovo is not part of Serbia (See:Rez. 1244 there is no paragraf in wicht s standing "Serbia", please dont speculete). We dont need no ropagander here. The serbs are saing that Kosovo is part of Serbia, the Kosovars are saying thate Kosovo is indepedent. Beacose of hate this article is not NEUTRAL The only documents wich is prufing thate are the Serbian documents. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are trying to point out that Belgrade has no real jurisdiction over Kosova; that is correct and this can imply that it is not part of Serbia. But we have to follow international convention as layed out in the UN and as such, Kosova/o is part of Serbia until either Belgrade cuts itself off or the international community recognises an independent Kosova. Until then, we can still see clearly that it is separate from Serbia, but we have to respect international convention. Politis 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no. Kosova, Serbia and Wjvodina are sepereted member of the Yugoslavia and no one of them is recodnezed alls state. The RS Serbia was not recodnezed (Srbia is onl a region in RS Serbia withaot status). Kosova and Wojvodina has veto right in Yugoslavia but not Serbia. See the Yugoslavian constition. The region of Serbia has oly veto in RS Serbia but not in Yugosllavia. This region it was "puffer zone" betwen Vojvodina and Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You should wait the end of negotiations in Wiena. I think that this has been allready discussed here. Kosovo is part of Serbia still, and you can see that on all these maps on every article. --Pockey 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The End in Wiena. Now is in Prishtina.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you put relevant souce for this claim about neogotiations? --Pockey 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


The last meeteng in Wein it was the last at all. Now they are going to meet in Prishtina. This type, how is his name the cordinator is backe from China and is saying that the las meeten is ging to be in Prishtina. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See his interwiev--Hipi Zhdripi 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but negotiations are not finished still. It is not important where they are. --Pockey 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No this is somthing ells. In this meeteng Kosovo is going to regotnez Serbia als state, and Srbia is going to regodneze Kosovo alls state. After thate the UN members are going to regotnez both states (I dont kwno what is hapen with Wojvodina).--Hipi Zhdripi 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I think that Wojvodina should be sovereign sate soon as posible. Momentary, there are some liberty armies who wants to release poor people from Serbian tyranny. --Pockey 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How I say, I dont know for Wojvodina, but in Sandjak durin last thre moths was more than four bomb exsplostion.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? Last month in Belgrade was bomb explosion. --Pockey 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Police (500 policeman: 19 sebians and the others albanias, bosnjaks and UN-police) and KFOR (new base) is rouling over Nord part of Kosovo to prepare for eache "criminal act" after the soulution is going t obe proclamered. Some ethic serbs in nord Kosovo are praperted to demostration. They saye they have called "amergensy state" situation. I think this is cleare for wicht solution is going to bee proclamnted. Petersen is ill in Skopje and now is bac in Prishina (22:00h).--Hipi Zhdripi 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And when such solution will be proclaimed? Do you have some link about that? PANONIAN (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Police and KFOR need some one or two week to "clean" the north part from Millosheviq supporters. But the clesan info for the day in wich is going to hapend is secret.--Hipi Zhdripi 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And how you know for this then? :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Oj, not another crazay, neverending Kosovo is/not a part of Serbia debate. It's been going on at the Kosovo article for quite some time now (where most people, except, predictably, the local Kosovar Albanian, agree that the province most certainly technically/legally is a province of Serbia, but under UN administration. Check out the talk page for evidence of this by the truckload. Osli73 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My friend the Kosovo Mission is over. (23:10 /Radio RTK News/ NATO is anding more trups in Kosovo). Now I dont know wich is the next Mission Sandjak or Vojvodina. For thate this is the article for wich we are going to discusse. Millosheviq prophety "Is not question only Kosovo, but Kosovo is a key" it beacame thru.--Hipi Zhdripi 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not listen Radio RTK, so do you have some Internet source for your claims? PANONIAN (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! How can you understand that Hipi guy? His english is so bad that i can't get it. Hipi, please, translation needed! Do you speak any other language in a bit higher level? ELADIKI

Saying Kosovo is not part of Serbia is the same as saying Quebec is not part of Canada, and both are equally dumb. I can't believe people actually try to pass this off as fact... *sigh...Stop The Lies 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


Kosovo is the birthplace of Serbia!We cannot and we will not give away a cruical part of Serbian teritory!

Successor state to Yugoslavia

I know that this is too early to talk about, but the article reads the Serbia "remain[s] the successor state to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro". So does that mean that by transitivity, Serbia is also the successor state to Yugoslavia (since before, Serbia and Montenegro is regarded as the successor state of Yugoslavia)? Because if such is the case, then the statistics related to the international participation of Yugoslavia (i.e. medals won in Olympics, beauty pageants won, number of terms and positions held in international bodies like UN) will now be attributed to Serbia, as may be referred to in footnotes (like Russia to USSR).Joey80 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Yugoslavia do you refer to? Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later renamed to Serbia and Montenegro) was not the (sole) successor state of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—although it claimed to be for a while. That claim, however, was denied by United Nations and many other international organizations (European Council e.g.), and FRY had to reapply for membership in several of them. Thus, the rest of your question lies on a wrong premise. Some lesser international organizations (FIFA, notably, as far as I can tell, I'm not sure about MOC) did accept succession and thus counted the old SFRY medals etc. on FRY's account. Duja 07:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Newest" country?

In the Wikipedia article on Montenegro, that country is claimed to be the newest country in the world. Montenegro declared independence on June 3 - but Serbia declared independence two days later, on June 5. Does that imply that the Republic of Serbia (and not the Republic of Montenegro) is the newest country in the world? Or do these two countries share the title? Or is Montenegro the newest country in the world - since Serbia is the sole sucessor state to Yugoslavia/SCG?

In my opinion we can't say that Serbia is the newest country. They were the leading force of the old Yugoslavia so Montenegro is the newest country in the world. Deliogul 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbia is the union successor so the statement that Montenegro is the newest is correct (though false on the other side as Montenegro was independent before)

Map of cities

This newly added map of the cities hidding the text behind it (at least on Opera browser). Can somebody correct that? PANONIAN (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected that myself. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

I added fact tags to "occupying forces committed atrocities against Serbs and Jews" because it's not well-known, and should therefore be cited. The was the same reason I tagged "supported the army" later on. MSJapan 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy data

Why are many of the economy figures (GDP, etc.) taken from the factbook page on Serbia and Montenegro? This is certainly inaccurate. -- ran (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the data but:

  • I agree with your statement that it is inaccurate, among other things, because government is not aware of all the business going on. It may have an agenda tweaking some of the numbers, but this is the same for any source of such information for any country.
  • I don't see any particular source I could fully trust for any given country anyway. Any other / foreign institutions know have a lot less information and they also have their own agenda, so their numbers cannot be trusted either.
  • In that case there really is just one information that can be posted anyway - the official one, however inaccurate it may be.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This data is fine for now until data is available for the republic of Serbia as a country alone.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
But the data is patently wrong. It is given as that of Serbia and Montenegro. The article does not even mention that the data applies to Serbia and Montenegro, it just gives them as the data for Serbia. -- ran (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the data is coming from. If it is coming from Serbia & Montenegro government site it might be correct because data is also published per republic. In any case, I found the following for those who have the nerve to comb through the numbers: Republic of Serbia: Quarterly Gross Domestic Product, at constant prices 2002 - 4th Quarter 2005. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


  • In this moment we can't use economic data from any source from Government of Republic of Serbia or NB of Serbia for Republic of Serbia wikipedia article, bcs this sources include only economic data for Central Serbia&Vojvodina province and exclude economic data for Kosovo province. Republic of Serbia consist of Central Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo.

If we exclude economic data for Kosovo province which was in 2004. - 1.68% larger than economic data for Montenegro[4], the final economic data result will differ even more.

Until the futur update of economic data from IMF, WB and CIA factbook for Serbia (Serbia&Montenegro succesor) which all include cumulativ economic data for the part of Serbia administered by Serbian Government (Central Serbia&Vojvodina province) and Kosovo province administered by UN Administration, the current data from CIA will stay.

Thus, we will include assumption that the economic data for Serbia may be reduced for approximatly 6% (avarage rate of Montengro GDP part in Serbia&Montenegro GDP totall in 2003-2006 period) and the economic data from IMF source will be added. -- Gaston28


I wonder why don't you use data from Serbia's economic institute and National Bank of Serbia, example someone put that Serbia has PPP of 7500 USD, I saw no such estimates anywhere in any major publication or website, IMF< WB or EU economic institute. Considering GDP of Serbia in 2006 was only 21 billion U$ and this is by Serb National Bank data, how someone got Serbia's GDP (PPP) at 60 billion is beyond me. Someone should correct the data. Serbia PPP in 2006 was according to IMF only 46,674 million USD, giving an average income of 4860USD per head, should not this data be used and not some fake information? -- Mic of orion

Official status

Ukrainian is not official language in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. No matter what some (uninformed) journalist wrote in that external link, here you can see official web site of the government of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina: http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/Engleski/vojvodina.htm Quote: "The Statute of AP Vojvodina stipilates that the official languages, besides Serbian, are Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian." Ukrainian is not mentioned, thus, not official. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ruthenian IS Ukrainian, or dialect of it.

Template:Infobox Serbia

Hi people,

A better place for this would be WP:SER, but as I'm not sure about its activity.

Currently there's no consistent infobox for Serbian towns and cities and have uploaded maps of all/most Serbian municipalities into commons:Category:Maps of Serbian municipalities and merged the look of {{Serbian cities 3}} (used in some articles) into {{Infobox Serbia}}. However, before attaching the template to the articles, I'd like to have an agreement in advance about its contents—once you change the contents of the infobox, a whole lot of articles would have to be updated. After an agreement has been reached, we should put up our sleeves and attach it to appropriate articles.

So, for all interested: please visit Template talk:Infobox Serbia and suggest improvements. Duja 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Superfluity of images

I removed several images of Đerdap and others on which we can see mountains and waters in Serbia. Those pics must be on articles about nature or flora and fauna of Serbia. Here was a lot of saints. I left only one because this article is not about Serbian Orthodox Church, but Serbia. We should see other articles about European countries. They are whitout many pictures and galleries. --Pockey 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Wikipedians' notice board

I just started regional Serbian Wikipedians' notice board, which is a place where questions and problems about articles related to Serbia and Serbs should be discussed. So, if anybody have problems with some articles or need help about something, it is right place to discuss it. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Serbian_Wikipedians'_notice_board PANONIAN (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On demographics

In the part of article about demographics in Serbia, most of text is about demographics of Serbian subdivisions. Isn't that wrong, because subdivisions have its own articles. Ie, there is ethnic composition of province of Vojvodina, but not one of Serbia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.123.18 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have noticed paradox on list of external links. There are two links who are "most visited sites in Serbia". According to Alexa.com, b92.net is the most visited web site in Serbia. But User:Manp (talk · contribs) does not think like that, and he is putting krstarica.com like most visited site. So, can anybody tell can we have two most visited sites on the list? --Pockey 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User Pokrajac a.k.a. Pockey obviously doesn't accept Wikipedia's objective approach, and that no personal or religious beliefs are supposed to be expressed through this site.

His qualifications on website B92 could be his personal belief and view which is not corresponding to real true fact. He used one source for his claim and then he asked me to put source for my claim, which I did and then he intentionally [removed it], so he can keep promoting his favorite site (B92).

The only logical approach is to remove all superlatives and claims (as advised in Neutral point of view (NPOV), an official policy on Wikipedia). I have removed all "most visited" like qualifications from the article, but user Pokrajac keeps undoing this change over and over again.

Manp 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can not say which web site is my favorite. We are not house friends. Obviously you are ignoring Alexa.com research where B92 is most visited web site in Serbia. And ok, if you want there is no need for superlatives, but do not write wrong informtions on article Krstarica about "most visited site", and confesse reality, your site is not most visited. Regards, --Pockey 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC) --Pockey 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Alexa.com is not a research company. They just provide information collected from their toolbar installations, not using research methods like Nielsen//NetRatings. --Manp 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Alexa is not a research company, but Yutrend is completely irrelevant: there is no data about their research methodology. And, comparing significance of Serbian local activities to alexa.com (US company) and to yutrend.com (Serbian company) -- I can say that Yutrend researches are more disputed then Alexa data. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

War crimes

War crimes are a very important element when describing Serbia. War crimes have been an integral part of Serbian nationalism, which has been the main main ideology of Serbian political leadership in the past 200 years. Any entry about Serbia without war crims will be defficient.

I find it odd that the issue of ICTY cooperation is not mentioned, particularly in the context of Serbia's EU aspirations. This is a major issue in Serbia's international profile, which has effectively blocked Serbia's path to EU and NATO membership. It also presents a serious challenge to Serbia's current democratic leadership, who do not bear responsibility for the crimes committed in the 1990s. Would anyone object to a few sentences about it? Something in the history section like:

"Serbia's post-Milosevic democratic leaders have said that membership in the EU and NATO is a priority for Serbia. In October 2005, the EU open negotiations with Serbia for a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), a preliminary step towards joining the EU. The EU formally suspended these talks in May 2006 after EU officials determined that Serbia was not cooperating fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In particular, the EU has demanded the handover of indicted war criminal Ratko Mladic who is widely believed to be in Serbia. NATO has also said that Mladic's handover is a pre-condition for Serbia's membership in the NATO Partnership for Peace program. Serbia's leaders have insisted that they are already doing all they can to arrest Mladic." Envoy202 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigotted remarks like this have no place in the Wikipedia. Even setting aside for a moment the issue of whether the ICTY is a legitimate criminal court (and that's a major question mark in and of itself), you are asserting that an entire nation should be defined by the actions of a few individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.55.214 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) - and then removed by Jovke (talk · contribs) 01:12, 27 November (UTC) (diff.)
I repeat. This type of crass, bigoted argumentation does not belong on the Wikipedia. And neither does censorship. I would appreciate it if people would refrain from deleting my objections to the above comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.230.199 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Bigotted remarks like this have no place in the Wikipedia"...Jovke, personally, you sound like a Serbian nationalist and you are stating that these very important facts on Serbia's recent history should not be inluded in it. So with these remarks you are stating that: Slobadon Milosevic's aid to the Bosnian Serb army which killed thousands of people in Bosina (e.g:Srebineca) never happened and shoudl not at all be mention??Is this is purly proposterous? And NO, no one is asserting that an entire nation should be defined by the actions of a few individuals. However many people in the country of Serbia still support and honor the name of the so-called war crime individual named Slobadon Milosevic. Now you can try to defend your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragan101 (talkcontribs) 18:34, December 9, 2006(EST)
There is hardly a country on Earth that has not committed war crimes over the past century or so. Why are you singling out Serbia? Because of Milosevic? In a civilized society people are supposedly innocent until proven guilty and Milosevic was never convicted of anything. The fact is that the prosecution was losing the case badly when Milosevic died. They had failed to produce a shred of evidence or a single reliable witness to tie him to any conspiracy. Not that the ICTY is anything that has ever resembled a legitimate criminal court. In a democratic society you are entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers (not a panel of judges appointed by your enemies), you are entitled to an indictment hearing, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime, you have freedom from hearsay evidence, and you are entitled a clear separation between judge, jury and proesecution -- all basic rights to a fair trial that are not afforded by the ICTY. So please go back to the Bosnia article and ask why Nasser Oric's name is not mentioned there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.76.46 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Internet domain

I put a "sources needed" tag on the area of the countrybox that says .sp is Serbia's Internet domain. I somehow doubt that this has been declared yet, I get the impression that SP has only been proclaimed as Serbia's ISO-3166-2 code just a few days ago, and that no corresponding decision on its TLD has been made. I also gather that .yu is still heavily in use (after all, its previous ISO 3166-2 code was CS and the .cs domain remained unused for the 3 years of its existence). I suggest changing it to what was before, like what is on Montenegro's page, it too has just had its ISO 3166-2 code announced (ME) but the .me TLD hasn't been created yet (see the talk on the .me page, and the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" note that appears there.) I suspect taht someone was engaging in their own crystal ball for Serbia. (It does seem all but certain it *will* be .sp, but it hasn't been declared yet. And after it does, I suspect .yu will still be hard to get rid of.) --Canuckguy 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They did declare it, I remember hearing all about it on the RTS Newscast (Radio Television Serbia). It may not be official yet, but the decision was made - thats the difference between the Serbia and the Montenegro situation. I actually think that it would be better to leave the .yu, add one of those 1 and at the bottom write that it will soon be officially changed to .sp. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I've read that news, .sp was only counter-proposed by ISO to Serbian proposition of .rs. It certainly isn't accepted (yet) as such, and certanly not by W3C. .yu is still the official internet domain for all practical (the .yu domain names are still being issued) and formal purposes (new TLD, if any, not officially accepted yet). Duja 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

814???

Serbia... founded in 814...? Uhh.... could anyone try to elaborate this??? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple:
Europe in 814
Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
...and? That Map bears no incinuation that Serbia was founded in 814, doesn't it? Besides, please refer to the article Serbian lands. There, you will see all the Serb factions throughout the history and you'll notice that only Ceslav's 10th century realm was AFAIC "Serbia". --HolyRomanEmperor 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New article on Kosovo

I've added a new article, Constitutional status of Kosovo, which discusses the various constitutions of Serbia and Yugoslavia as well as the current situation. It would be very helpful if knowledgable editors could have a look at it and add any comments to Talk:Constitutional status of Kosovo. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Inclusion of the name "Servia"

A couple of days ago (started 22 September 2006) the addition of "and originally known as "Servia" " was added to this page by a user, which kickstarted a little tit-for-tat reverting of pages to and from this edit.

I had heard of the name servia used once before (sometime this year in a UK newspaper, I think the Times) dealing with a world war gift from the queen to war veterns from the UK, one other country (I can't remember) and "Servia", which was not known to be which country) for their sacrifice in the great war (WW1), so I did a bit of research into the name. So far I got the following:


"Extract from Nuttal Encyclopedia, regarding servia 1907" This link does not explicitly link Serbia with Servia of the time, but there are similarities in the description, which bear resemblence to serbian history (especially the dates of 1815 (serbian uprising) and 1389 (battle of kosovo))

Servia article, 1911Encyclopedia This one states Servia as the name in english, with the translation as "Srbiya", or serbia. It also talks about a city within these lands called "Belgrade"

1901 Treaty between Great Britain and Serbia This one is of interest as its title reads: "Treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Serbia [Yugoslavia] for the Mutual Extradition of Fugitive Criminals" On the first line, and the latter text makes reference to serbia as "Servia" and to its king as being Alexander. This link is from Australia, because as part of the commonwealth, all UK laws were applicable to its empire.


It would seem that at the very least, the UK and its empire used the name "Servia" for the then Kingdom of Serbia. Would this not warrent its inclusion? As shown in the UK newspaper this year, this name is still used, and many people do not know which country it refers to (neither did I up until a short while ago). As such I feel it should be included, either in this article or the "Kingdom of serbia" one.

Also many of the maps in the article (and indeed the one about 814 above, are labeled "servia", I don't think this is a typo).

So far the only argument against is from PANONIAN with "Do you see "v" here: Sorbs". This I feel bears little relevence in this discussion at the moment, as its to do with a completely different time period (we are currently discussing the 1900's). I think this was to do with the original submitters summary which states that "servia" is the name given to the area by the settling serbs.

About this point in particular, I set about doing some more research and I came across this link which states "In the seventh century the forefathers of the present Serbs, a tribe of the southern Slavs, migrated into the country, which received from them the name of Servia. During the Middle Ages and well into modern times the term included not only the present Servia, but also Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, and the northern parts of Macedonia and Albania." which would back up the original submitter, but so far I have not found any other references, so I belive more research and verification is needed before we can decide upon the time period where "servia" is used as the name.

I may be missing something, which results in this not being included in the article at all, in which case, feel free to post it here, for the moment I will add the deleted line, until some discussion on the subject has occured and some consenceus is reached, thanks.

--ZivaVatra 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't present any arguments yourself in the first place -- and the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Now that you resented to talk and presented the evidence, you might have a certain point. Since all of us apparently for the first time heard about the term Servia used in modern context, (and I doubt it would be immediately recognizable to present-day native English speakers), it's certainly an (British?) archaism from times before WWI. The manual of style somewhere (can't find it at the moment) states that the lead section should contain all the names under which the entity is commonly referred to. The term Servia appears to be a century-old mistranslation, and stating "previously known as Servia" in the lead paragraph gives the impression that the country was renamed rather than it's an archaic usage, plus it certainly doesn't bear a relevance in modern times. As such, it could be mentioned somewhere in the text, but it definitely doesn't belong to the lead section, and not stated like that. Duja 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and my apologies for not presenting the arguments in the first place, my mistake. I agree with your points, and I believe it should not be mentioned the way it was by the original poster. I was just not sure how it should be presented instead, so left it as it was instead. Whether this was the most intelligent course of action, I'm not so sure now (I thought it was at the time, I guess I should avoid editing when tired).
ZivaVatra 16:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the matter somewhat: here is a page, apparently created by a student — not fitting the WP:RS, but he apparently conducted a nice research:

The book contains an important article The Story of the Black Hand and the Great War by a Montenegrin intellectual Voislav M. Petrovich, p. 243-267. He committed suicide in London in 1934 after a violent campaign instituted against him and threats of the Black Hand. It is interesting that Petrovich had published a Serbian grammar in London in which he succeeded in getting the English Press to use the word "Serbia" instead of "Servia".

Duja 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For ZivaVatra: please stop your trolling. "Servia" is a false name for Serbia. Name Serbia derived from the name Serbs which never had letter "v" in their name. Check some historical maps:

PANONIAN (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not an attempt at trolling. I did not originally insert the text, but I did find references to it (and heard of it before). It is obviously been used online, legal documents and commemoration of the serbian People. I am aware of the "b" in serbia etc... and that this is most likely a (very) long-standing spelling mistake that was eventually corrected by Voislav's Book, but at the same time I think it should be at least noted somewhere in the article that during a certain time period, the name servia stood for serbia (even if it wasn't the name given to it by the serbs themselves, possibly with an explenation as to how/why it occured).
ZivaVatra 16:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but has no place in the intro. It's simply one of those thing: Rumania/Romania, Jugoslavia/Yugoslavia etc --estavisti 16:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, ZivaVatra, my point was that sentence you trying to impose that Serbia was originally known as Servia is simply wrong. It was known in some sources as Servia, but that certainly was not its original name. PANONIAN (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
What Panonian says. I've also seen it referred to as "Servia" in many old sources in English, generally pre-1918. I believe the system of transliterating Cyrillic into Latin changed around this time, as it seems to have been common to transliterate some characters differently then - hence Србија -> Servia, Ромaнов -> Romanoff. -- ChrisO 07:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Used to be Servia in Spanish too before the Bosnian War. I am not sure about the reasons, as in Spanish there is no different between B and V, in the sense that both letters are pronounced as /b/. Regards, Asteriontalk 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the article, Servian, it seems a user has unilaterally moved pages and is giving undue weight to this incorrect term. I'm not sure how to proceed, so hopefully someone help, I just recalled this discussion here, so if the user responds to comments I have left on the Talk:Servian_(disambiguation) I will direct him to refer to this discussion. // Laughing Man 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the moves, tried to fix the issues by dab-notices at the top, and AfD-ed Servian (disambiguation). Actually, the fact that this is an archaic name should be put somewhere in the article (see discussion above that it was used indeed before WWII), just, I'm not sure where: I don't like it in the intro, and it doesn't quite fit elsewhere (maybe in "History"?) Duja 09:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried to clarify the history of usage "Servia" in the article, with several sources; I hope it settles the issue for good. I'm not sure the intro is the right place for that—feel free to find it a better place to live. Duja 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Time is comming and time is going

I dident know thate Dardania (Kosoo) was so big. Now I know way Serbs hase make mytologie of Kosovo.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talkcontribs) -using the IP 172.174.34.35 (talk · contribs)- 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi PANONIA is nice to see thate you are traing to work here in en:Wiki but I think thate you must work more in sr:Wiki to explen the peopel, to understande to seperet mytology, history, politic and Wiki. Sorry but reale some serbs have taket the strategy from some Islamic fundamentalists and they wount too tell the rest of the Word thate the only one is Serbia (Allah). They have loste the realty, I cann understande thate this cand of comunication can help i innternal crises but this dot work in external crises. This is maken the serbs to clown (=palatcho/joker/) of Europ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talkcontribs) -using the IP 172.174.34.35 (talk · contribs)- 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Atention Info Box mape

Atention: The mape is not showing the teritory of Serbia but the last part of Yugoslavia in year 2006. Serbia and Vojvodina was merged to Serbian state and Kosovo is UN Protectoriate. See the last CG statemant http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/Suedosteuropa/KosovoStatement060921.pdf the statut of Kosovo is not definetet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talkcontribs) -using the IP 172.174.34.35 (talk · contribs)- 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

ISO Codes

Evidence is provided here: ISO website

Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The serbians crime organisatio is movien in Moskwa

After they have destroid Balkan they are moven there hrad in north part of the earth in "Hart of Serbia", in Moskwa. They have sale all captured part of Balkan after 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talkcontribs) -using the IP 172.158.148.47 (talk · contribs)- 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Zazaban 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL, this guy is obviously retarded.
OMG! Quickly before its too late http://secure.hop.com/

This article talks about the dismantling of Yugoslavia and its connections to current world events

I think this article is important to look at. It connected the dismantling off Yugoslavia, the bombing of Serbia by NATO, Iraq, Lebanon, the former USSR, and events in the Middle East, plus oil. All editors should take a look at it for their own personal reasons to understand one of the reason Yugoslavia fell apart and was aggresively opposed by the US and NATO.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.164.190 (talkcontribs) 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Municipality presidents

I found interesting site here: http://www.cesid.org/lokalni2004/rezultati.jsp?opstina=70505 It list all municipality presidents in Serbia, so if somebody is interested to write their names into infoboxes in the articles about Serbian municipalities, he can do it now. There are too many municipalities and I do not have time to do it, but if somebody have time, it would be good that this job is done. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a productive thing to do. Almost all municipalities have local elections at different time (regular elections at the end of a mandate or premature elections if the local assembly is dismissed), and, also, municipality presidents are not elected on direct elections - they are being elected by the municipality parliament which often changes them more than once in one mandate. Also, the central government has the authority to dismiss all municipality staff and produce premature elections in that municipality. So, to be up to date, that list would have to change every month. It's much better to have a link to the official government page that always has valid data. Jovke 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in adjacent sentences

The Ottoman period was a defining one in the history of the country; Slavic, Byzantine, Arabic and Turkish cultures suffused.

So -- the Serbs lost their identity as Slavs, Byzantines, Arabic, and Turkish. (Suffused is a rarely seen word meaning combined in this context.)

However the majority of the Serbs managed to keep their culture and religion through the long period of Ottoman rule.

No -- they kept their identity. I don't have stake in this, but could someone take this out, and add something that doesn't contradict itself. patsw 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Economy section

I saw the request for expansion and came across a news article today referring to an European Bank for Reconstruction and Development report that stated Serbia has shown highest growth in Southeast Europe this year so added it to article. Someone please move it the appropriate place (the table or Economy of Serbia article?) if necessary.// Laughing Man 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But from which state of economy is that growth? Economy is so weak that it needs A LOT bigger boost to come up to something normal soon.. Jovke 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox details

I really don't understand why some people are reverting the article to some previous form in which is written that: 1. Serbian language will confirmed as official on November 8th by proclaiming the new constitution. IT IS ALREADY DONE!!!! 2. Turkish is ALSO official language in Kosovo from September 2006. For those who don't know about that: http://unpo.org/article.php?id=5498 and http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060923&hn=36713 3. +382 code is not yet introduced in practice and Montenegrin Telecommunications Agency announced that when IT GETS introduced in practice, FROM THAT MOMENT six months period for using both 381 and 382 will start to expire. So, 381 will be used by Montenegro for sure till May 2007, and maybe even later. 4. U can find in many articles that .rs code WILL NOT be active till 2007 and that .yu will also be used till about 2010!!!!

213.198.226.241 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)milan

Well, it's been a practice for some time for the Kosovo parliament to bring decisions which are in the contrast to UN resolution 1244. And I don't see enough needs for Turkish to become official except pleasing the Turkish government. And where did you get that data about number of Turks in Kosovo? There was never any census there after 1999. It's all rumors. So, every Kosovo parliament decision is NOT VALID until it's accepted by the UNMIK administration there. There are many decisions parliament made which were pronounced invalid by UNMIK. That means that when Turkish language appears as one of the official languages in UNMIK official document releases, it will be. Jovke 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's Zoran?

I find it odd, to say the least, that the name "Zoran Djindjic" does not appear anywhere in this article or on the discussion page. I would think that the recent assasination of a prime minister is relevant to both the history and the current politics of Serbia, no? Jasontoon 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're perfectly right. But, the article is heavily lacking of many important events. For example, it nowhere says about the assasination of king of Yugoslavia, Aleksandar Karađorđević in Marseille, France, in 1934, which is much more important event. So, it lacks a lot of stuff and I will try to put in more important first, and then others. But I'm not a superhuman, so the process won't be instant. Jovke 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on History of Serbia series instead; as with other countries, the idea is that only a brief outline is presented in the main article, while details go on the more detailed history articles. Duja 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish IS one of the official languages in Kosovo

It's like that from September 2006 and stop writing in Infobox that those are only Albanian & Serbian !!

If you don't believe: http://vladimirkurdistan.blogspot.com/2006/09/turkish-becomes-official-language-in.html http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060923&hn=36713 http://www.turkuaz.us/news_det.php?newsId=332&catId=32 http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/CHR/ING2006/09/06x09x22.HTM http://www.hri.org/news/turkey/anadolu/2000/00-08-05.anadolu.html ...

Need more???

213.198.222.48 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)milan

It's moot. As I get it, it's not even official on entire territory Kosovo, but "only in the areas with significant Turkish population", which is confined to Prizren region. See also Talk:Kosovo/Archive_11#Turkish Language Official. Duja 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Official presentation?

How come every country (like Montenegro) has its official website, an online presentation, and Serbia has none. --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"[...] for we are the Serbs, and they are not." --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It does. http://www.srbija.gov.rs It's existed since Milošević's day....--Еstavisti 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


New GDP for Dec. of 2006 per capita is 4.028$ (not PPP!) http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2006&mm=12&dd=22&nav_category=9&nav_id=224634 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.126.242 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


tukish is not an offical language of kosovo,,,,,,,,,, turks have been albanian enemies for 6 centuries

Immigration / Naturalization?

Would anyone know what the law is in Serbia about whether foreigners can become Serbian citizens? What different ways are there? Thanks! ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.210 (talkcontribs) 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Eventhough there are virtually no foreign immigrants to Serbia (only those who are working in Serbia on temporary basis), the law is surprisingly rigid. For someone who is not of Serbian ancestry or married to Serbian citizen, the procedure is impossible - first, one needs to have permanent residence permit, which is issued only to those with permanent employment in Serbia, which in turn means that one needs to have a work permit. Once such permanent resident has lived more than 3 years in Serbia, he or she can apply for citizenship, but only if they give up their previous citizenship (by birth).
The procedure is more relaxed for people who are of Serbian ancestry, or married to a Serbian citizen. In the first case, citizenship can be obtained by simply signing an affidavit in which applicant recognizes Serbia as his or her country. The same applies to the applicant spouse, regardless of ancestry, once they have been married for three years. Note that residence in Serbia nor giving up of other citizenships are not required. Also, spouse of Serbian citizen for at least three years who is living in Serbia can become a citizen by signing the affidavit.
Serbian Law on citizenship is available here, in Serbian only. Meelosh 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

SAA suspension

I added a line under the history section noting the EU's suspension of Stabilization and Association Agreement talks. It previously just mentioned the start of the talks, but not their suspension -- this looked odd to me. The sentence added is: "These talks, however, were suspended in 2006 after the EU concluded that Serbia had not done enough to meet its obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia." Any objections? Envoy202 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

History section: 90s history is laughably bad

The history section is awful on the 90s history. I'd propose this short summation. What do you think?

"As Yugoslavia collapsed in the early 1990s, Serbia offered support to ethnic Serbs involved in the bloody ethnic conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. Serbia was a party to the 1995 Dayton Agreement that put an end to the war in Bosnia.

In 1989 Serbia revoked the autonomy of its southern province Kosovo, which was overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian. In response, Kosovo Albanians launched a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience with the goal of achieving independence from Serbia. By the late 1990s a guerrilla band, the Kosovo Liberation Army, began targeting Serb security personnel. As the conflict worsened -- and Serb reprisals grew more severe -- NATO forces conduced a 78-day bombing campaign to compel Milosevic to withdraw from Kosovo and agree to an international peacekeeping mission (See: Kosovo War). In June 1999, Milosevic capitulated and Kosovo was placed under UN administration (UNMIK) pending a determination of its future status. A UN-led process to determine Kosovo's future status was begun in late 2005." Envoy202 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Current version is better. // Laughing Man 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version has an unsourced screed about the KLA: "Many sources suggests that the K.L.A. was funded by the US government because they needed a reason for an intervention. K.L.A. did terrible, sometimes even barbaric acts, like cutting peoples head and many kinds of physical torment. Indicted war criminal Agim Ceku was a prime person behind many of these acts." By no means am I saying the KLA was a bunch of nice guys, but you have to admit that this section is pretty wacky and doesn't fit in with the article. Also, I sought to trim and better define the chain of events. Envoy202 14:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed that nonsense from the article, what you wrote is not much better than the above nonsense what you wrote just as sensational ... "ethnic Serbs involved in the bloody ethinc conflicts" ..to.. "Kosovo Albanians launched non-violent campaign of civil disobdience". // Laughing Man 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Military

Do you believe it is really necessary (or should I say relevant at all) to have the JNA (Yugoslav Peoples' Army) internal structure from early 1990s on the front page of a country's article? I mean, why is it important for readers to know that HQ of 5th Army was in Zagreb?! Meelosh 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Down with it. The article should describe the current army, that material is for history of the JNA article. Nikola 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Serbian uprisings during Ottoman rule

According to the official article, Serbs never rebelled against Ottoman rule before 1804. Is this true or is there a factological mistake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

No, this is not true. Although Serbs were in peace with Ottoman Turks at first, later they turned against the central Ottoman rule, continuously seeking independence. The first uprising against Turks took place in Banat in 1594. In order to punish the Serbs for this rebellition, Turkish Sinan-pasha (who was an Albanian by ancestry) brought the body of Saint Sava, the most important Serbian saint, to Belgrade and burnt it there. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holidays

I removed Orthodox New Year, St. Sava and St. Vitus from the holiday list. While those days have certain historical importance, none of those was ever an official holiday (except before 1941?), so the entire section comes out as an excercise. The only hard criteria that can be used are official documents; otherwise, we might add e.g. Catholic Christmas, 29. November or 7. July as important dates for someone else. May I remind you that we don't permit original research? Duja 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I dunno about the Orthodox New Year part... I mean, that's still celebrated around the world by a lot of Serbs (and qualifies as a day off school/work in Canada for some people). I know this article is about Serbia and not Serbs in the rest of the world, but I dunno... isn't it pretty significant even if not officially documented? (Although I'm sure it is somewhere). Stop The Lies 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
Dujo, honestly, I assumed all of those were national holidays, I didn't even double check when I edited. But yes, those are not _national holidays_, but religious/personal ones. If we listed them, we should list Ederlezi, all major saints, etc. Stop The Lies, Julian New Year (FYI, Orthodox New Year or something like that, although a widely accepted name, is brutally incorrect for that holiday) probably belongs to articles about Serbian culture, or more likely, about the Serbian Orthodox Church. This article (Serbia) should be more concerned about political/demographic/etc. features of the state. --dcabrilo 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If the Orthodox Serbs celebrate their New Year according to the Julian Calendar, doesn't that make it the Orthodox New Year (aka: New Yr celebrated by the Orthodox)? It would be the "Orthodox New Year" no matter what date it was celebrated on, be it the Julian Calendar, or the Poopfactory calendar, because that's the date the Orthodox celebrate their New Years... It's simply a term... Personally, I do not celebrate it, but it seems a little silly to remove a date that seems pretty important to a lot of Serbs. Just my 2 cents. Stop The Lies 09:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
The terms "Orthodox New Year" and "Serbian New Year" are used only colloquially among Serbs; well, it can't be really called "Orthodox" because not all Orthodox churches celebrate it, and OTOH it's not uniquely "Serbian". The other thing is, it's only a minor celebration in Serbian Orthodox tradition (also called "little Christmas", actually St. Basil day), and it's not even a "red letter" in the calendar. Only in the recent years it became a fashionable things to celebrate, normally in the Serbian Way(TM) (sa pevanje i s pucanje). Duja 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, how official or widely celebrated holidays are in Serbia is certainly not my area, so it's definitely your say :) Stop The Lies 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
I don't know about the Julian New Year, but Savindan and Vidovdan are national holidays in Serbia. They were proclaimed at the same time when Sretenje, February 15, replaced April 27 and November 29 as the national day. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. [5], [6], [7], [8]. Duja 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed Sretenje to Dan državnosti Srbije, because that's the holiday's name (you get not to go to work because of the "Serbian statehood", not because of the religious holiday that coincides). Also, aren't May 1st and May 9th (Victory day) still official holidays (says so here? --dcabrilo 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:38 (UTC)

"Servia"

The claim that this form was used as a result of a folk etymology linking Serbians to servants seems ridiculous. The term "Servia" was used because "b's" and "v's" can sound similar. It is no different from sometimes seeing "Duke of Alba" and sometimes "Duke of Alva". Presumably, the folk etymology explains why Serbs took offense at this spelling variant, not why the spelling variant was used. I'm going to change it unless someone provides some explanation here. john k 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

References 11-14 cover that, esp. 1911 Britanica and [9]. Whether the etymology is folk or not is still open to some speculation, thus the word "likely" in the sentence. I don't mind making it weaker, like "presumably" or "supposedly", but I'm against removing it altogether; I could understand B/V mixup if the word were of Spanish or Greek origin, but the "folk etymology" explanation of misattributing the origin still looks more plausible. Duja 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is deeply unclear, since it implies that the name "Servia" came about as a result of a folk etymology associating the Serbs with servants. That doesn't make any sense. A folk etymology later developed to associate the name "Servia" with "Servants", but this isn't why the term "Servia" was used rather than "Serbia". A literary scholar writing about Arms and the Man, at any rate, is not an expert on Serbia. The statement in EB1911 does not make the case either, it merely says that the Serbs resent it, because they feel that the usage leads to the folk etymology connecting "Servia" to Servus. I've tried to change the wording to be more clear. I see no source actually saying that the term "Servia" derives from that usage, as the article implied. john k 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before (see below), the entire discussion about how Serbia was spelled in the UK at the turn of the last century seems a bit overdone. Yes, the spelled it incorrectly (probably because v and b sounded alike). However, that hasn't been the case for almost 80 years or so and very, very few of the readers are likely to be aware of or care about this. I move that we should strike the entire section as irrelevant. Cheers Osli73 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing how it gets fatter with "theories" of Iranian origin et cetera, I must confess that you have a point... Duja 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Replacing "Serbia vs Servia" with "Etymology"

Since the "Serbia vs Servia" section also deals with the more central issue of the etymology of "Serbia" shouldn't the section heading be changed. An English spelling of the name some 80 years ago doesn't seem like the central issue here. Comments? Cheers Osli73 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't have anything with "etymology" either. Actually, I added that paragraph trying to put an end to a troll war, and it originally was the last sentence in the intro. Though, I guess "Name" would be more appropriate and standard wiki-wise. Duja 12:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I guess "Origins of the name" or something like that would be better. Just thought it a bit strange to include a title about how "Serbia" was called (incorrectly) in English almost a century ago. You decide since you wrote the section. Cheers Osli73 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Genocide Ruling

Is it really that important that we include this in the article? Compare with other events in the nation's history, this really is a trivial matter. Compare this to the Berlin Conference; both are international agreements, but one of them has a lasting impact (recognition of independence), while the other one is about involvement in a mid-sized war. So again, is it really that relevant? If you must include this on Wiki, then it would probably be better to put it in the politics or foreign relations articles. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia section-no mention of ethnic Germans

"The occupying powers committed numerous crimes against the civilian population, especially against Serbs and Jews." http://www.porges.net/JewishHistoryOfYugoslavia.html might be a useful reference In 1941 in Serbia and Banat, German troops assisted by "Volksdeutsche" ransacked Jewish shops and forced 9145 Jews out of a total prewar population of 12000 to register. 2500 adult men were sent to a camp in Belgrade, all of a total of 8000 prisoners there were executed.


Some mention of what happened to the Ethnic German (Volksdeutsche) at the end of WWII needs at least a mention. I would propose at least an added paragraph something like

"After the end of WWII, much of the ethnic German civilian population was confined and later expelled" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Supporting info:

http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/016e-geiger.htm 'An International Symposium "SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE 1918-1995"' as a reference, itself listing supporting references. 48000 Germans died in internment and forced labor camps throughout Yugoslavia. Banat in a 1931 census listed 20.6% ethnic German i.e. 120,450 people (including 1,874 German Jews), 4% in Yugoslavia overall. 1941 ethnic German population estimates are 600,000-750,000. At the end of the war, 100,000 ethnic germans were detained in roughly 70 camps. By 1948, 55000 remained, so 90% of the German population had either been expelled or died in camps.

www.read-all-about-it.org/tito-partisanen/banat3.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/refugees_03.shtml "Violence against the Volksdeutsche here was probably more relentless than in any other country." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.129.166.50 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

814???

Of course Serbia was not founded in 814. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the foundation of Serbia as such. When the Serbs came to the Balkans during Emperor Iraklie's reign, they were led by an anahront, whose great grandchildren will go on to become the first named rulers of these part of the Byzantinian Empire (during the eight century), namely - the Vlastimirovic Dynasty. However, Serb regions were never quite independent and thus there was never a foundation date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.209.221 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Who keeps deleting Milosevic's picture?!

Someone keeps deleting Milosevic's picture. No matter how much people hate him for making Serbia look bad or whatever, he was a very important and controversial leader in Serbia in modern times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.138.59 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

We should all try to forget about Milosevic.It's for the best.

814 ???? map so not acurate

This map was drawn by somone who doesnt know History. First of all there was no Italy it was the Roman empire, There no such thing as eatern roman empire because that was the nickname given for the Bytiziane empire much later in history, there was no england at the time regarding that they were the Norman who apperared around 11 centuray. It is clear that an idiot drew this map. --Marbus2 5 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent political developments

As indicated by my revisions to the Government and Politcs section of the article, the political situation has chance on both 8 and 11 May 2007; perhaps the article should have a current events flag in the masthead? Xenon 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, otherwise all countries would have it all the time :-) --Hadžija 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

True enough. :) Xenon 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption from Yugoslavia section

"The age of mass-media: The 5th October revolution even made news on MTV." I'm not entirely sure what this means. Are all other news programs filters that lead to MTV? Does MTV only play the most important news? Since when is MTV a judge of what is important and what is not? If this is not about the importance of the event, then what does a quip about mass media have to do with this article? JHMM13 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's meant to mean that it was so significant that it even made the airhead news, or something to that effect. But yeah, it's irrelevant and should be removed.--Hadžija 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would even suggest that if the news in question got MTV coverage, it had to have been important enough at the time (particularly since MTV, as I understand it, couldn't give a rat's arse about what goes on in the world beyond the world the of Britney Spears, but that's another discussion for another time, and another place). In any event, I believe that the meaning of that sentence is likely broadly interpreted by readers in the way Hadžija mentions. :) Xenon 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cities table and COAs

At the moment, two of the COAs (Novi Sad and Kragujevac) are fair use images, so can not be in the table without breaking policy. The rest claim to be either PD or GDFL/equivalent. So, either the table can have no images, so it's standard, or there can be a couple gaps. Personally, I think the images add color and make it look nicer, however having open spots will look funny. Unless someone can recreate those two, I'd support having no images, and as such, am reverting to the no-image version. If it is decided to have the COAs (with or without those two), it would probably look nicer having them in the first column, rather than in the middle -- they just feel misplaced and distracting, breaking up the number columns like that. -Bbik 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there really any purpose in a whole column for the municipalities? Considering they're all "[city name] Municipality", it seems more than a little redundant. If images are added back, perhaps they should just be added in front of the city names in the current table, rather than reverting entirely. This way, the column headers are bold too, which makes it much easier to read at a glance. -Bbik 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we cannot have CoAs in such lists; fair use images may be used only in their respective articles. In a recent debate (regarding lists of TV series episodes, but the principle is the same) it was decided that non-free images may not be used in simiilar lists, as they have only decorative function. AFAICT, all the CoAs used should fall under fair use, so the PD/GFDL claims are false; I'll revise the images. Duja 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Involvmenet in Croatian and Bosnian wars

User:Rjecina recently replaced the existing text describing Serbia's involvement in the Croatian and Bosnian wars:

By 1992, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina had all declared independence from Yugoslavia, resulting in the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic and the outbreak of war. Serbia, together with Montenegro, formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. Serbia was not directly involved in the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1995 in Bosnia and Croatia. However, the Serbian government did support the interests of Serbian people in Croatia and supported giving military equipment to the Bosnian Serbs.

...with this text:

By 1992, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina had all declared independence from Yugoslavia, resulting in the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic and the outbreak of war. Serbia, together with Montenegro, formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. During the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1995 military forces of Serbia has attacked Croatia and Bosnia. Officially Serbia has not declared war but in reality her forces has been in battle of Vukovar, and then many other battles. Similar to that in first phase of Bosnia war serbian paramilitary units (Serb Volunteer Guard, White Eagles (paramilitary))from territory of Serbia has attacked Bosnian cities in river Drina region. After end of first phase of Bosnia war Serbia has send "only" volonters, army supplies and wages for army of Bosnian Serbs. This together with sanctions has created record inflation.

I believe it is fairly undisputed that Serbia was involved in these wars through military aid (financial, material and operational, much reduced once UN sanctions were fully imposed). However, at the same time Serbia was not offically at war in any of these circumstances. So, to say that "military forces of Serbia has attacked Croatia and Bosnia" gives the wrong impression. Either way, the paragraph could certainly do with a more detailed reference. CheersOsli73 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One correction: Serbia was not "involved in these wars through military" because it did not had its own military before 2006. It was military of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that was involved in wars in Croatia and Bosnia. We cannot simply claim that non-existing army was involved in these wars, that is ridiculous. PANONIAN 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Pannonian, you're right. However, since Serbia is the inheritor (?) of the SFRY one could argue that Yugoslavia was involved (together with Montenegro). Also, I think I've heard that the Serbian (republican) police were involved, though I'm not sure that is correct. Anyway, I think the text should mention the involvement in as correct a way as possible. Cheers Osli73 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So? The "inheritor issue" do not give us right to use word Serbia anachronistically. If we writte about Serbia, then our task is to writte about things related to Serbia, not to Yugoslavia because we have separate articles for that. In another words, if Yugoslav army was involved in war that should be written in the article about Yugoslavia, not here. As for Serbian police, that is different question of course - if this police was involved into wars (which should be verified by sources), that could belong into Serbia article, but only with proper definition describing that it was police (we should not invent Serbian army that did not existed in this time). PANONIAN 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert. But as I've understood it, modern day Serbia was acquitted of charges brought by Bosnia at the ICJ. This would seem to imply that Serbia is seen as responsible for whatever actions the SFRY had (or had not) taken. Based on that it feels to me as if Serbia is generally seen as one and the same as SFRY. Sincerely, Osli73 10:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But ICJ said that Serbia is not guity for what Bosnian Muslims charged it (anybody could charge anybody for anything, but the court would determine are those charges right or wrong) - what the ICJ said is that Serbia is responsible for its own actions that it had (or had not) taken in accordance with jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia. In another words, such actions apply to Serbian police and instituons of the Republic of Serbia, but not to Yugoslav army and institutions of Yugoslavia. Also, our Wikipedia article about Serbia should also speak only about Serbia, its institutions and its police, but not about Yugoslavia, its institutions and its army (why would we have articles about yugoslavia then?). PANONIAN 14:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, yes, basically the ICJ found Serbia to be "not guilty" but with a slap on the wrist for not having taken more care in stopping what was going on. However, the fact that the ICJ transferred the initial charge brought by Bosnia against the SFRY back in 1992 to Serbia would seem to imply that the ICJ felt that Serbia was the successor to the SFRY and could (if it had been found "guilty") have been held responsible for actions made by the SFRY. Apart from such legal details, it would seem to me that the vast majority of sources describe the actions of SFRY during the war when it describes the history of Serbia. Not doing so would be as if a history of England did not include its involvement in the Napoleonic wars, simply because the principal in that war was Great Britain. This being said, I don't support the new text proposed, since it is obviously inflammatory and unsourced. I propose looking at the sources for guidance on this.Osli73 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


The following text has been moved here from user:osli73s talk page.

Rjecina, I'm fully aware that Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro were deeply involved in the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. However, the Wiki articles should try to describe the nature of this 'involvement' as factually and neutrally as possible. Also, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make their own analyses or draw their own conclusions (which would be original research). Finally, I'd be glad to cooperate with you on this on the condition that you stop the type of cynic commentary you used above. Cheers Osli73 07:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem and sorry for cynic commentary. Simple I have become angry after reading article. Few minutes ago I have accepted sugestion of AgentCDE to put this question for mediation from WP:RFM . I know that my text is not very good because I know my knowledge of english. You can change article without problem. My only wish(demand ?) is that there is no text which speak that Serbia has nothing to do with war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina because of which UN has put sanctions ! Rjecina 0:35, 4 June 2007 (CET)

Rjecina, I agree that it would be wrong to say that Serbia was not involved with these wars. However, I feel that the current text doesn't deny this. It does say:

Serbia was not directly involved in the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1995 in Bosnia and Croatia. However, the Serbian government did support the interests of Serbian people in Croatia and supported giving military equipment to the Bosnian Serbs.

This makes it clear that Serbia was involved in the war in Croatia and supported the Bosnian Serbs. I would have no problem in expanding on this involvement in the text. There must be lots of information available on just what support was given (equipment, personnel, logistical, financial, etc.) which could be included and sourced. I'll take a look.Osli73 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To not look very long for sources I will give you 3 of them from english wikipedia. Articles are Battle of Vukovar, Ratko Mladić and War in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • In first is written how JNA has come from Serbia to attack Vukovar. During "trip" they have commited ethnic cleansing so that only Serbs stay in taken territory. Do you agree that doing this JNA has become Serbian army ?
  • In second is written On May 2, 1992, one month after the Bosnian Republic's declaration of independence, Mladić and his generals, acting under orders from Belgrade, blockaded the city of Sarajevo, shutting off all traffic in and out of the city, as well as water and electricity.
  • 3rd article is must important. There is writen how in perion march - may 1992 Bosnian Serb Army was able to take over 70% of the country during these months. . This is another Serbian POV which I will now change. Why ?

Bosnian Serb Army is created only in middle of may 1992. Before that name has been JNA which is under total control of Belgrade and Serbian president Slobodan Milošević. My point is that Serbian army under name of JNA (they are making ethnic cleansing of non serbian population)has taken 70 % of Bosnia and now somebody tell that they have not been in war ??? Only after that conquest they have started to give only "supplies". Conclusion: Serbia has been in war with Croatia and Bosnia between september 1991 and may of 1992 !!Rjecina 2:20, 4 June 2007 (CET)


While the current text states that while Serbia was not officially involved in the wars it "did support the interests of Serbian people in Croatia and supported giving military equipment to the Bosnian Serbs." Rjecina thinks this is insufficient and does not correctly describe Serbia's full involvement in these wars. I'm not sure about this and would like some additional opinions.

  • on the one had it can be argued that the JNA was not the Serbian army but the army of the SFRY and therefore Serbia was never involved in the conflict. This is the position of PANONIAN.
  • on the other hand one can argue that the majority of the conscripts in the JNA during this period were from Serbia (although many were also from CG and BiH and that the JNA was controlled by Serbia/Milosevic and could therefore be considered the army of Serbia. This is the position taken by Rjecina. This might also be supported by the fact that Serbia is the successor state of SFRY (as, for example, in the recent ICJ case of Bosnia v Serbia) I am leaning in this direction.

Cheers Osli73 08:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav army was lead by defence council that included president of Yugoslavia and presidents of the republics (president of Serbia, Milošević, was member of that defence council, but that was different function that he had, and presidents of other republics and provinces (of Vojvodina and Kosovo) also were in that council and also had control over army. Also, during war in Croatia, Yugoslav army that fought against Croatian separatists was composed of peoples from four Yugoslav republics: Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bosniaks, Hungarians, etc. So, claim that it was "Serbian army" or that "it was controled by Serbia" is ridiculous. Also, the fact that Serbia is seen as successor state of SFRY, still do not give us right to use term Serbia anachronistically - if we speak about Serbia in 2007 then we can say that it is successor state of SFRY, but if we speak about Serbia in 1991 or 1999 then we have to speak about Serbia as it was in this time. For example, if we speak about 1991 and if we use article "Serbia" to speak about history of Yugoslavia in 1991, then where we should writte about history of Serbia in 1991? PANONIAN 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


OK, I see the logic in this. However, I still think it might be worthwhile to expand the information on what exactly was Serbia's involvement in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, since this will undoubtedly be something a lot of readers will want to know about (or should know about). If we source it (the expanded text) properly, it can also function as a model/reference for othe articles which deal with this subject (such as the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina article). Cheers Osli73 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would something as simple as adding to the offending sentence work?: "However, the Serbian government and the Yugoslav People's Army did support the interests of Serbian people in Croatia and supported giving military equipment to the Bosnian Serbs."
That way, there's no need to debate over whether it was the Serbian or Yugoslav army, there's another mention of Serbia's (as a part of Yugoslavia) involvement, but it remains neutral, and if people want to look into more detail about timeline and scope of the relevant army, there's a link to click.
What I'm not clear on, is whether the JNA fully supported it all, or if it was a partial thing there, as it sounds like was the case with the government. -Bbik 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But there is again lack of the connection between Serbia and Yugoslav People's Army. The only connection would be Milošević, who in the same time was president of Serbia and member of defence council of the Yugoslav army (and he controled army as member of the council , not as president of Serbia - these things should not be mixed). PANONIAN 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


My understanding is, that, at some point the JNAs involvement in these wars went from being about maintaining the unit of SFRY to protecting/promoting the Serb insurgents in the breakaway republics. I'm sure it was a gradual development so it's probably difficult to set a specific date when this happened. Osli73 10:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We will never come to agreement about Serbia role in Croatia and Bosnia wars so my proposition is to say nothing about that. This wars are for article War in Croatia and War in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If this is article about Serbs then we need to write about Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, but this article is about history of Serbia so it is best for us all not to write about this 2 wars. If I want to look for details I will say that nothing what is writen of period between 1989 and 1995 is truth but we will not spoke about that in this article (Serbia with coups has taken power in Kosovo, Vojvodina and Montenegro in period 1988 - 1990).

In my thinking text about period 1991 - 1995 need to be something like this: By 1992, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina had all declared independence from Yugoslavia, resulting in the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic. Serbia, together with Montenegro has then created/formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. Peace of that new state has been broken between 1998 - 1999...Rjecina 7:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not good to delete whole part of history only because somebody do not like what happened then. What exactly you consider wrong in the current sentence in the article? PANONIAN 09:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking that we have started little by little discussion looking for solution which will make as both happy but if you have thinked that I am somebody which do like what happen then you must never forget that I am not alone. On my side is all United Nations with resolutions ! On your question what is not OK this is my answer (from article):

"Serbia was not directly involved (this part is not OK) in the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1995"

If you want that something say about wars in Bosnia and Croatia (but I do not see point) then this need to look like:

"During the Yugoslav wars from 1991 - 1995 Serbia goverment has supported Croatian and Bosnia Serbs. Because of that, the country was under economical and political santions, which resulted in economical disaster that forced thousands of young Serbian citizens to emigrate from the country".

This is neutral part of article which say nothing and all about wars in Croatia and Bosnia. Reason for this are words "Serbia goverment has supported Croatia and Bosnia Serbs". With this you say that Serbia has supported but you don't say how (military, economical or....) This will be neutral and this can stay (I am not happy but..)Rjecina 10:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Current version ok? PANONIAN 11:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted support for Serb institutions in Bosnia and Croatia because of timeline. Timeline is this (from wikipedia):

  • 1 april 1992 start of war in Bosnia
  • march 1992 Bosnia declaration of independence
  • 6 april international community confirm Bosnia independence
  • 7 april 1992 Bosnian Serbs declaration of independence
  • 12 may 1992 creation of army of Republika Srpska.
  • 12 august 1992 Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina is changing name in republika Srpska.

Point of this timeline if that in time when war has started Republika Srpska institutions has not existed. Because is not possible to support institutions which do not exist it is not possible to write this in article. In this first 45 days before creation of Republika Srpska army Bosnia has been overrun by Serbia (Yugoslav) army. I accept that after that Serbia has given only support for Serbs in Bosnia but not before (in legal way it has not be possible). Rjecina 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Point is bad because even if Republika Srpska did not existed there were institutions of Serbian Autonomous Oblasts (SAO) that existed before the war and Bosnian proclamation of independence. PANONIAN 12:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Obrenovici

What about period when Kragujevac was capital of Serbia (1818-1845). There is nothing about Obrenovic's Serbia in History section!?

NPOV

In the section "The Yugoslav Era", the language used in the article is very biased and is severely mispelled, attempts to change this have been reverted. One example of bias is in this section

"Tito and comunists weakened Serbia as they could.They divided Serbia in three parts.Central Serbia,Vojvodina and Kosovo. Upon Tito's death, the controversial status of the autonomous province of Kosovo created a Albanian nationalism and chuavism"

First of all this does not explain why Tito divided Serbia, but simply accuses him and the communists of wanting to weaken Serbia. It accuses Albanians specifically of chauvinism, while not mentioning that there were Serbian nationalist elements in Kosovo which could equally be considered chauvinist.

First of all, Tito divided Serbia into three because of the serious threat of Croatian nationalism which was delegitimizing his leadership of Yugoslavia and challenging that the system favoured Serbia. In response, Tito both arrested the Croatian nationalists and divided Serbia in 1974, creating two autonomous provinces to prevent further eruptions of nationalism.

Secondly, the accusation of Albanian chauvinism, is trying to villainize Albanians. Many nationalist movements have varying degrees of chauvinism attached to them. There probably were a number of Albanian nationalists who were chauvinist, but so are a number of nationalists from other areas. Chauvinism and war crimes were perpetrated by all sides in the Yugoslav Wars. Depending on the ethnicity of those in the former Yugoslavia, interpretations of what happened vary from person to person from the former Yugoslavia.

Thirdly, the article has removed the fact that Yugoslavia itself did engage in a one-year war with Croatia, which did involve Serbian recruits fighting in Croatia and result in a signficiant number of deaths on both sides and claims that Yugoslavia never participated in any of the Yugoslav civil wars.

Usually the whole issue of who is chauvinist or not in the conflict falls into a viscious cycle of people arguing about the numbers, showing pictures, etc. of war crimes, and arguing that some pictures or facts are falsifications or exaggerations. Every side had chauvinists, every side did war crimes, the only question is the numbers which are still argued to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.161.143 (talkcontribs)

Yup, you're right. Fossa?! 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Following Fossa's changes. Are there any outstanding POV issues?Osli73 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Only this section seems to be diputed, hence a more localised tag would be more appropriated. On the other hand, if the "offending" paragraph has been completely removed or rewritten, the tag is no longer needed. --Asteriontalk 07:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This I write only because of last days comment why other republics has been in fear from Milosevic: I do not know how much is your knowledge about Yugoslavia so I will write little her about Yugoslavia death. For all us "historians" from ex Yugoslavia which are not living in Serbia first date of Yugoslavia death has been 6 october. 1988. I am sure that you now ask why ? After Tito death Yugoslavia has been ruled by presidency in which every republic is giving 1 member. Last 2 members has come from Vojvodina and Kosovo which has ulmost in all been independent from Serbia. Together there have been 8 members in presidency. On 6 october 1988 Serbia (Milosevis) has with coup in Vojvodina take control of this "province" and of her member in presidency. On 10 january 1989 Serbia has made coup in Montenegro and in march of 1989 he has made coup in Kosovo. Now in april of 1989 Serbia has 4 votes of presidency and all others "free" republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia) have another 4 votes and Yugoslavia has been dead. I really do not understand why Serbia has not tried coup in Macedonia to win 5 vote, but has choosen Slovenia. When this coup has failed in 1989 Yugoslavia presidency has become locked in 4 (Serbia): 4 (all others) voting. Funny is that Serbia has abolished Kosovo and Vojvodina provinces but she has not abolished members of presidency which has from then on put on positions from Serbia president :)) Breakup of Yugoslavia and political Story of Great Serbia has started only after failed coup in Slovenia when it has become clear that Milosevic will not have 5 votes of presidency and he will not become Tito after Tito. Rjecina 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct you for the sake of accuracy: coup in Montenegro was not performed by Serbia but by Montenegrin people who allied themselves with Serbia, thus it was not Serbia that had 4 votes in the presidency but Serbian-Montenegrin coalition. And I do not see how you can call Croatia and Bosnia "free" republics when they were ruled by pro-fascist HDZ and pro-islamist SDA (and these parties were no better than party of Slobodan Milošević - they all have same guilt for wars). Also, Serbia did not abolished provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, but only redefined levels of their autonomy, and it did abolished their votes in the presidency too. And one more thing: "political Story of Great Serbia" was indeed started in that time, but not by Milošević - it was started by Croatian media. PANONIAN 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am sure that coup in Montenegro has been created by people which live there:)) Do you know why coup in Slovenia have failed ? Because Croatia has closed borders for Serbian "tourist" which has wanted to go see how beautifull is Slovenia capital. About voted in Yugoslav presidency my answer is that after coups Serbia has 3 votes (out of 8) and Montenegro with coup rulers has given 1 more vote. Rjecina 10:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that "Montenegro coup rulers" were elected by people of Montenegro and not instaled by Serbia, thus 3 votes of Serbia in presidency is correct description but even such votes of the provinces were later abolished and in the FRY provinces did not had their representatives on the federal level. Regarding Serbian "tourist" that wanted to "see Slovenian capital", they would not achieve anything if people in Slovenia do not support power change. Unlike this, the majority of people who voted in elections in Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro, did voted for such "coup rulers" (as you called them) - remember that Kosovar Albanians never voted in any Serbian elections, thus the majority of citizens of Kosovo that participated in elections indeed voted for "coup rulers". PANONIAN 11:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

With elections in Serbia and Montenegro people has not "choosen" rulers but only confirmed Milošević (in Serbia) and coup leaders in Montenegro. How fre has been this election I will give you comment of Human Right Watch: "By May 1991, all the republics had held elections, although the elections in Serbia and Montenegro were neither free nor fair" About situation of Kosovo in 1991 you really do not want reports of HRW. Rjecina 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not need reports of people who never were here and who cannot even find Serbia on World map - I very well know what happened: Albanians simply decided that they will not vote in Serbian electins because they do not recognize Serbian state, thus exactly they are guilty because Milošević stayed in power for so long. If Albanians voted in elections, their votes would defeat Milošević together with votes of democratic opposition. The exact reason why Milošević tolerated presence of Ibrahim Rugova is the fact that boykot policy propagated by Rugova was exactly what kept Milošević in power. As for people in Serbia and Montenegro who "confirmed Milošević and coup leaders", if they wanted they could vote against them, but they didnt. Of course after devastating NATO bombing, majority of people in Serbia saw that Milošević will lead this country into destruction and thus majority of voters voted against him. PANONIAN 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the end you know what is funny ? This version is more pro-serbian of version on Serbian wiki (article History of Serbia) ? Rjecina 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


OK, since no-one seems to be willing or able to list the precise outstanding supposed POV issue I will delete the tag. CheersOsli73 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You can return POV because of this "mistakes":

  • "Banat uprising 1594" - Serbs has then been small minority in Banat so this is not Serbia uprising and until XX century Banat has never been part of Serbia.
This is ridiculous - Serbs were majority in whole western and central Banat in this time including its parts where Romanians are majority today. The fact that you do not know some things does not mean that you should claim that such things did not existed. As for Serbia, Banat was part of Serbia from 1849 to 1860 (see Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat), not to mention that many old maps mention Banat under name Rascia (Serbia): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Rascia_Banat01.jpg PANONIAN 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
About map I will say only that it is a joke. If I read good this map Serbia is ulmost until Thesallonica. Then this must be XIV century !? If this is XIV century every historian will tell you that this map is false. Look history books why ? Other point is that Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat has never been part of Serbia but Austria, and for the end how you explain that in XIX century after 2 Serbian exodus (from Serbia and Kosovo to Vojvodina) and 160 years latter(After great exodus in 1689) Serbs in Vojvodina have been minority in 1850. I am sure that there will be story about Croatian, Austrian or Turkish genocide of Serbian population in Banat (and Vojvodina).Rjecina 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Joke? Well, there are more similar maps here: Raci. Are all of them joke? I do not think so... It is well known historical fact that Banat was in many sources mentioned as Serbia (Rascia). And this map is from 1590, thus the question whether it refer to 14th or 16th century is really irrelevant - important thing is that it mention name Serbia in Banat long before 19th-20th century. And it is really ridiculous to say that "Voivodship of Serbia was not part of Serbia" (if something have name Serbia then how can we say that it was not part of itself). And Serbs were minority in 1850 in that province because Austrians purposelly draw its borders in the way to make it very ethnically diverse - of course I speak about territory of 1849-1860 voivodship, but in the territory of Vojvodina with present borders, Serbs were not minority in 1850. As, for genocide against Serbs, there were indeed 2 genocides against Serbs in Vojvodina during this time: one in 1703-1711 and another one in 1848-1849. PANONIAN 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Now my question is what this map show, where are political borders and what signification are of yelow, green and red lines on the map ? If I accept your argument that short lived "Voivodship of Serbia is part of Serbia because everything which is having Serbia name is part of Serbia then in this logic Croatia is great European country which need to have in territory part of Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia (White Croatia), Panonian Croatia (now it is part of Croatia), great parts of Bosnia (Dalmatian Croatia) and parts of Montenegro and Albania (Red Croatia). I have been never thinking in how great state I live. Maybe you now want to say that all things which has have name of Serbia are Serbian but this is not OK for other states ? I will not even comment your try to use your article on wikipedia to show that you are right. On that I will only say that it will be lower number of your fundamentalist articles about how good and great (in territory )are Serbs on wikipedia. Rjecina 6:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is very usual map for 16th century period - if you learn something about map making for that time period you certainly would not ask such questions. You cannot compare 16th century maps with modern maps because they were made very different, but important thing is information presented on such maps. And where I said that something that "have name Serbia IS PART OF Serbia"? - What I said is that "what have name Serbia IS Serbia", so I do not see what possibly you cannot understand here. And I really do not understand relevance of comparison with Greater Croatian territorial aspirations - I here spoke only about present and a past not about stupidities how large any country should be. Regarding your personal insults and threats, just see what happened to your "friends" that had similar attitude here; Wikipedia is scientific project and not place for trolling and political provocations and if you have trollish intentions instead useful scientific work you simply will have to find another place for that. PANONIAN 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The two of you are devolving into "You're wrong!" "No, you are!" again. And personal attacks, intended or otherwise, won't help either of you. Rjecina -- sarcasm won't help. Panonian -- labels of ignorance rather than answers won't help either.
So, to repeat the very clear question, which presumably was asked to help with understanding, what do the red, yellow, and green lines on the map you've linked mean? While those may well be standards for the 16th century, not everyone studies maps, and of those who do, not everyone studies ones from that time period. -Bbik 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do have bad temper, and when I see that somebody come here just to provoke and insult (and it is exactly why he came here - to present Serbs as "evil people"), then I cannot react 100% civil to that (but at least I am trying to have at least 90% civil answers). Regarding map, many maps made in 16th-17th century were made in the way to present informations from different centuries in the same time. In another words, this map could contain both, informations from 16th century and informations from previous centuries (15th, 14th or even earlier), all depends of what sources author of that map used. Therefore, such maps in fact served both, geographical and historical purpose. As for lines in map, they could be reference to Ottoman provinces in the 16th century or to state borders that existed in this area before Ottomans or to both of these things. PANONIAN 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat - About that I will say only that Serbs has been minority and offical language has been german.
Both, German and Serbian were official, and so what if Serbs were minority, the province still was known as Serbia and was established for Serbs. PANONIAN 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Bosnia has declared war against the Ottoman Empire in 1876 ? - This is joke. Bosnia has not existed then (it has been Turkish province). There have been revolt (with full support of Serbia and Montenegro) and nothing else.
  • Gavrilo Princip -another joke is statement that he has been member of Young Bosnia. Name of this "organization" has been created only after 1918. He has been member of serbian organization Black hand because of which Austria has declared war to Serbia.
  • "However, parts of the present-day territory of Serbia were occupied by Croatian". - Croatia or NDH has never occupied Serbia. in 1941 she has "only" recieved back territory annexed by Serbia in 1918 (town of Zemun).
No, NDH did not "received back anything" because NDH never existed before 1941 - it was just an fascist puppet state that hold its entire territory under occupation. And Zemun was part of historical Serbian Vojvodina that united with Serbia by will of the people (nothing was "annexed"). PANONIAN 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Again similar story of last time. Zemun has been teritory first of military Krajina, then of short lived Vojvodina (duchy), then again of Krajina and in the end of Croatia (kingdom) until 1918. Croatia has entered Yugoslavia with Zemun which has been later annexed to Serbia.Rjecina 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong - it was never part of Croatian kingdom; it was part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia until 1918 when assembly of the people of Srem in Ruma decided that Srem region (including Zemun) join to the Kingdom of Serbia. And there is again fact that NDH did not existed before 1941 and that it has nothing to do with any other political creation from any part of the history. PANONIAN 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army" - This is only Serbian thinking.

For me must historical must funny thing is that Serbian dynasty which has ruled from X - XV century has been in reality Croatian dynasty Trpimirović which has changed surname 2 times (like Windsor in UK). If you look this today it is really funny :)) Rjecina 15:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Some comments on the above:

  1. As this is the history of Serbia, rather than the Serbian people, I think it is relevant to include historical events in regions which are either part of the present state of Serbia or have been in the past, regardless of the ethnic group concerned.
  2. To say that "parts of present-day Serbia were occupied by Croatian..." during WWII seems correct from the maps I have looked at.
  3. I agree that calling an organization "terrorist" is POV unless it refers to how a certain party perceived that organization. If that's not the case, I'll remove the "terrorist" bit.

CheersOsli73 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment about Croatia occupation of Serbia. Look this map from article about Habsburg empire: [[10]] You will see that NDH (not important what I think about this "state) has recieved in Serbia only what has been annexed from Croatia in 1918. With my poor english I will write today about territorial changes in time of Yugoslavia between today independent statesRjecina 6:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: NDH have nothing to do with former crownland of Croatia-Slavonia. And following your own rethorics we can also say that former crownland of Croatia-Slavonia "annexed this territory from military frontier", so it is clear that it was not "God given territory of Croatia". Every land belong to its people, no matter who rule over it and Croatian rule over Syrmia was only among many in history, but important thing is that population in present-day Serbian part of Syrmia was mainly ethnic Serb during several centuries and therefore NDH rule was seen as occupation for most inhabitants of Syrmia and for international comunity which never recognized existence of this fascist puppet state. PANONIAN 18:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, tell me if I understand your argument correctly. Basically, you are saying that since this part of present day Serbia had previously been part of Austria-Hungary it is incorrect to call the Croatian annexation of that territory as "occupation". Is this a correct understanding of your pointof view? Osli73 09:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that in history do not exist my and your (example) point of view but only what has happen in reality. If we speak about Serbian Syrmia she has been annexed from Croatia kingdom (Croatia kingdom has been in union with Austria-Hungary empire and she has few "independent" ministry)to Serbia in 1918 and in 1941 returned to NDH by germans (in legal point is this tehn occupation 1941-1944 ?). If you want to look about border changes during Yugoslavia (with what has countries entered and with what have they left Yugoslavia) see my today article Border changes during Yugoslavia (you will find maps of Croatia and Serbia in 1914). You will see that article is very neutral. Your help for changing this article in better english is needed !Rjecina 10:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Again: Serbian Syrmia was mainly inhabited by ethnic Serbs, thus if you personally dislike the fact that these Serbs united with rest of their people that is just your personal problem. Before 1918, these Serbs lived in imposed imperial system that never asked them in which country they really WANT to live. In another words, in 1918 these Serbs finally became free and NDH enslaved them again in 1941, and not only enslaved but killed many of them, and therefore the way in which NDH ruled over Syrmia could not be called by any other words instead classic colonial occupation (not to mention ilegallity of this occupation as it was seen by international community). PANONIAN 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only sorry that for us is not possible to speak about national/state arguments in court because I will win every time. Look this now you say about Syrmia that "Every land belong to its people". I am sure that you think that only about lands where Serbs are majority because in Kosovo where Albanians say "Every land belong to its people" and we people want freedom you say they are terrorist !! Rjecina 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you consider that you won then please find something useful to do and please stop disrupting Wikipedia project with provocations and trolling. Also, please prove that I ever said something like "Albanians are terrorists". PANONIAN 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No you are speaking in articles about terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army but when is needed to speak about Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia you speak about Serbia support for military forces (not terrorist, but normal) of Bosnian and Croatian Serbs. Rjecina 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never said that Albanians as a people are terrorists (as you implied in your previous post) - I only said that for KLA. Although, I indeed support aims of all peoples in this World to be free, I do not support violent solutions for the problems. Regarding difference between KLA and Bosnian and Croatian Serb armies, the difference between them are circumstances in which they existed and acted: Serb armies were armies of de facto existing independent states that were involved in frontal combat with their enemies, while KLA was involved in terrorist-like attacks against regular army and police. PANONIAN 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't have been returned to NDH because NDH was an unrecognized puppet state,and yes, territory of Kingdom of Yugoslavia was legaly considered occupied by Nazi Germany and their allies. Rules of Hague conventions should have been applied, but Germans and other nazi-oriented entities (mostly Croats, Bulgarians and Hungarians) disregarded that and commited horrific crimes. So, not only it wasn't a legal territory of NDH, but it was also an illegal occupation.--Velimir85 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Dear all, I think this discussion is going nowhere. In my opinion, the simple (or at least relatively simple) solution lies in two key Wikipedia guidelines - WP:OR and WP:V. Basically, it's not up to the editors of this article to determine what is the right or wrong interpretation of history, we should simply convey how professional historians (or, at least, respected sources) portray a specific historic event. I'm not sure how many good historic sources on Serbian history there are available on the internet (I'm sure there are a lot of books though). I suggest that we agree on a couple of sources and then apply their presentation of Serbian history, rather than our own (which would be WP:OR). I suggest we add any good sources below (online or otherwise):

  1. US Department of State, Background Note: Serbia


Good link with very few not important mistakes. Rjecina 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC) OK, does anyone have any other, perhaps more detailed, links or sources they feel could be appropriate (ie not obscure books/sources)? CheersOsli73 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled that an argument is went on this long, and I am very mad that no one on Wikipedia called a close to this. I wrote the first section MONTHS AGO, and now it has gone completely off-topic with nationalist rants and accusations of people who were "not there" of not being able to make sound judgements, accusing information of Milosevic's actions of being from "pro-Croatian" media, that Albanians did not "accept" the very existance of a Serbian state by User:PANONIAN. Or from User:Rjecina saying this article is "pro-Serbian" and speaking of Croatian "historical", "justified" claims on Serbia and being sarcastic about very grave and serious issues about the Yugoslav Wars. These are all obvious nationalistic statements by PANONIAN and Rjecina in particular. People can be proud of their nation on wikipedia, but post it on your personal page, DON'T insult other nations, DON'T POST Original Research which is forbidden on wikipedia. JUST QUIT, there have been thousands of these pointless debates. I'm neutral, I see the entire Yugoslav wars as a terrible catastrophe resulting from opportunists like Milosevic and Tudjman who used the old ethnic nationalist card, to win their way to power. I'm certain that many from the former Yugoslavia have been seriously and negatively affected by the brutality of the Yugoslav Wars and truely want to believe and prove that their nation was "the more innocent one", but that is personal judgement, and cannot and will not be sustained as fact on wikipedia discussions and articles. User:R-41

If either the user PANONIAN or Rjecina have any common, justifiable information that has firm proof that they want to add, or obvious, universally accepted errors they wish to fix, then they can continue on this page. But if either of the two or others continues this discussion board as a blog for a months long argument they should stop immediately. This is a warning to both PANONIAN and Rjecina, do not abuse the discussion boards any further with unjustified arguments! User:R-41

HDI

When is there going to be an HDI study?DedMed 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo (and Metohija)

For all of you arguing about how the name should be written, how about a compromise. The first time the province is mentioned, use the full Kosovo and Metohija, and after that stick with the more English Kosovo. Then in whatever section it keeps getting added to and removed from, leave the explanation of the Serbian name and the nickname Kosmet. (I'm not so sure what the Albanian name has to do with it, even as a majority; that seems like something that should be on the Kosovo page, rather than here, but I don't really care one way or the other.) Would something like that work for any of you, so this can be settled and (hopefully) avoided in the future? -Bbik 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the easiest would be to call the subsection Kosovo, explain that the official name in Serbia is KiM, link to the article on naming of Kosovo and then go on to use Kosovo throughout the article. CheersOsli73 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The one major issue I see with this is Vojvodina. Would there be a subsection for each province, then, rather than just mentioning they exist, as it is right now? That seems to be a bit of overkill, since the two provinces have their own pages already. Perhaps there's more information that should be summarized and added so the sections would be longer than a couple sentences each? Otherwise, there's no reason to have two subsections when the one that's there is already so short. -Bbik 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bbik's proposal. It certainly needs to be mentioned in the first use as it is in official use in the country, but throughout article it can be the shorter version. // laughing man 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Note that official name also needs to be present in other articles where it is expected, for example Subdivisions of Serbia. Nikola 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree.
  1. call it KiM the first time and then use Kosovo only
  2. no separate sections on the provinces, better provide links to the separate articles.
CheersOsli73 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First time write "Kosovo (Kosovo and Metohija/Kosmet in Serbian and Kosova/Kosovë in Albanian)". I think it is wrong to say KiM is the official name. Kosovo is ruled by UN and they have decided that Kosovo (and not Kosovo and Metohija or Kosova) is the official name. Kosovo and Metohija is highly politicized and thats why Albanians refuse to use that name.--Noah30 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
They have no right to decide the name of the province, and there is no reason to have Albanian name in this article. Your proposition makes it sound as if K&M is name casually used in Serbian when it is in fact official name. Nikola 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Albanian is a official language in Kosovo spoken by 95 % of the population. Who they? If you mean Albanians, than I can tell you they constitute 92 % of Kosovo and they can among other things decide the name. I still think we should use only Kosovo and some place in the article take with Albanian and Serbian versions of the name. --Noah30 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The United Nations Cartographic Section officially names that particular region the Province of Kosovo, with no mention of Metohija. UNMIK Operations Map I suspect this is more for the sake of simplicity than an outright attempt to remove Metohija from the equation.
No it is not for the sake of simplicity but because Metohija was not used until 1989 when Milosevic took autonomy from Kosovo. UNMIK ,to Albanians and Serbs disappointment, have decided to not use Kosova or Kosovo and Metohija. The official name UNMIK uses is Kosovo. We should also do this here. Otherwise it difficult to interpret it in any other way than anti-Albanian sentiment from some of the Wiki editors.--Noah30 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No. Metohija was used until 1974 and it was reintroduced in 1989. UNMIK has no right to rename provinces of Serbia. Nikola 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Use of Metohija was (re)introduced in 1989 after that Serb ultra nationalists who wanted to make Kosovo more Serbian began a new anti-Albanian campaign with only one goal: Expel all Albanians from Kosovo. Kosovo and Metohija was introduced by a man who has committed genocide Milosevic. I still think it is unacceptable to have Kosovo and Metohija even this is a article about Serbia. We should also use the Albanian word for Kosovo which is Kosovë/Kosova some place. Albanian is official both in Kosovo and Serbia (and Macedonia and Albania and Montenegro). --Noah30 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
What you wrote has no connection with reality. Nikola 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case, my suggestion would be to either refer to it KiM in the first instance, then as Kosovo subsequently in the body of the article, as others have suggested; or to simply refer to the collectivity as Kosovo, as the United Nations does.
The following opinions have no political motivations: Referring to the province as Kosova, as the Albanians would have it, should not be the case. The first reason for this, is that we're using the English version of Wikipedia. As such, the English language has been using the Serbian name for this province. The second reason is that as responsible Wikipedians, I think we should use the official United Nations nomenclature for the province until the time it is changed at the UN, if at all. Using the name Kosova, or any other unofficial name, for that matter, would skew the PoV. Xenon 12:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(Re: Noah30's suggestion) The reason I had proposed keeping the explanation of the various names where it has previously been in a section farther down the page is because the province is first mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction. Putting that much detail in the intro is inappropriate, even more so when it's only related to one part of the country the article is about. Having that long a stretch of parenthetical text looks bad as well, whether it's in the intro or elsewhere. Better to leave it in sentence form so the differences can be explained. -Bbik 15:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


OK people, it seems to me we're making this a lot more difficult than it has to be. The first time around, we call it whatever the official Serbian name (I guess it's KiM) for it is and thereafter we just say "Kosovo". The reason we should use the official Serbian name the first time around (rather than the official UNMIK or inofficial Albanian name) is that this is an article abot Kosovo as a Serbian administrative region. Cheers Osli73 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Kosovo i Metohija makes Wikipedia a Serb propaganda channel. UNMIK according to 1244 administer Kosovo and they have decided that the name is Kosovo. Is that so hard to understand. Kosova is also official since Albanian is a official language. Best solution is to use Kosovo (Albanian and Serbian name). We use e.g. Belgrade and not Beograd. --Noah30 17:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I also just wanted to add that the Constitution of Serbia refers to the province as Kosovo and Metohija. // laughing man 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This consitituion does no apply to Kosovo. Albanians in Kosovo could not even vote because Serb leaders cheated to pass 51 % limit. --Noah30 17:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Your personal opinion on on the Constitution of Serbia does not change the fact that it refers to province as Kosovo and Metohija, and I feel what is stated in such an important document for a country is very relevant to this discussion to try to obtain a consensus on mentioning this name in an article about the Republic of Serbia. // laughing man 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


The proposed compromise (i.e., use the Serbian government/nationalist term "Kosovo and Metohija" first, then use "Kosovo" elsewhere) is reasonable. "Kosovo" is clearly the established English usage, cited a huge number of times by reputable sources. A check of the sources reveals that "Kosovo and Metohija" is used virtually exclusively by only Serb government and nationalist sources. Plus, Noah makes a great point that to use "and Metohija" -- a term whose usage in the last twenty years has been intended to piss off Kosovo's Albanian majority -- tilts the article unacceptably towards Serb POV. LaughingMan's proposal is to decide that the Serbian constitution (obviously representing only one point of view in the current conflict!) should be given particular weight over all other sources, including Kosovo's operative legal documents such as UNSCR 1244 and the Constitutional Framework as well as media/international usage: to make such a decision would be original research. Incidentally, I suspect that after Kosovo becomes independent we will have this conversation again regarding whether to use "Kosova" instead of "Kosovo." I don't have strong feelings about it, but generally think that just to use "Kosovo" is the path of least resistance for now. Envoy202 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ever again put words in my mouth or speak on my behalf "Envoy". Although from your reading your text after seeing how you ignorantly and arrogantly equate the opinion of the "Serb government" (or did you mean the Government of the Republic of Serbia) and "nationalists", so I can see how you would immediately misinterpret my posts here. I simply stated facts. Please review my posts above. Please don't waste my time responding to further nonsense, and your typical crystal ball bullshit thanks. // laughing man 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Didn't mean to offend. Let's all chill out and avoid profanity. Envoy202 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My two cents: follow common English usage throughout (even in the first mention), except where a reader would expect to and/or benefit from finding the "full official form according to the Serbian government".
    Thus, in the current version of the article (as of 22:56, 2 July 2007 UTC) I would use "Kosovo and Metohija" only in the first mention in the Administrative subdivisions sub-section. To avoid any confusion, I would pipe the wikilink ([[Kosovo|Kosovo and Metohija]]), and would add a simple footnote explaining the name issue and directing the reader to the "Names of Kosovo" article.
    I imagine something along the lines of "The official name of the province is K&M, as mentioned in the Constitution of Serbia. This is the form commonly used in Serbian publications. See also: Names of Kosovo". - Regards, Ev 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ev is correct on this one. The full form should be used where useful and expected and shortened to Kosovo elsewhere. Both 'Kosovo' and 'Kosovo and Metohija' are acceptable in English, the former is just the informal usage. Whilst the UN administers Kosovo it does not determine it's status which remains (for the present) an autonomous province of Serbia, and known as whatever Serbia wants to call it. DSuser 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that even common Serbian usage is Kosovo. But official usage should be used where it should. Nikola 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking 1 day this discussion and to tell truth to me has been surprise statement given in discussion that Kosovo and Metohija is not new name, but that has been used in time of Yugoslavia. After looking old stuff I have come to discovery that name of Kosovo in first period of communist Yugoslavia is Kosmet which is short of Kosovoa and Metohija. My data if from 1953 so you have now 3rd name ?? Rjecina 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikola's version is the most stable one.--Tones benefit 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cities

Someone should add the cities from Kosovo in the list of Serbian cities. Kosovo is still apart of Serbia so anyone can you add them to that list on the artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euro.Serb (talkcontribs) 09:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added cities from Kosovo, taking the data frome the 'List of cities in Serbia' page which quotes 2002 census figures. The figures for cities in Kosovo only have one set of numbers, which seem to correspond with the 'urban' figures for those in the rest of Serbia. DSuser 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Kosovo is still apart of Serbia". Yeah, a nice typo :-).
Seriously, it's really difficult to estimate the population of Priština. There are no census data, and the population influx has been huge. It's best left separated than to mix apples (statistically verified data) and oranges (guesstimates). Duja 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Fair enough, Duja. We need some figures in there, though. According to the 'list of cities in Serbia' page both sets come from a 2002 census. We can't pretend those cities don't exist. If you can find better numbers, please just go ahead and amend.

And until someone says otherwise Kosovo is still a part of Serbia - don't prejudge final status negotiations please! DSuser 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Some users are reverting the addition of cities in Kosovo without contributing to the discussion here. However reliable the numbers are we need to account for those cities somehow - it is not that they don't exist! We need to put them in the list and annotate that the numbers may be unreliable. DSuser 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better solution would be to mention them (Priština and Prizren, perhaps Peć and Đakovica) below the list, in text. The official OSCE sources (reference in Priština article, [11]) estimate as much as 550,000 for Priština (including 200,000 displaced). Duja 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)