Talk:Greater Serbia/Archive 2

Greater Serbia claims on Albania
Not only Chetniks held claims on northern Albania. Pre-WWI Serbian kingdom wanted Durres as well, even though it had never belonged to Serbia or had a significant Serbian population. This does not mean that Serbian borders should not change. Additions may be considered, as well as ceding of some lands.--Pjetër Bogdani III 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually ALL of present day Albania was a part of Serbia, during Tsar Dusan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.154 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The map you posted there is the one drawn by Chetniks. So, what is the problem? PANONIAN   (talk)  00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian pacifism
What's the slogan of the Serbian Pacifist Movement? Serbia to the Pacific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.71.74 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's a good one.

...Sadly, it's also true. 76.18.140.105 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for anti-Serb jokes. Please keep it out of Wikipedia.--80.219.119.16 09:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbia land stolen from other countries
Serbs have gained a huge amount of land after the first world war which is still is under there control such as Vojvodina. west side of this land was croatia from River tisa to the river Dunab while the east side was Hungarian. kosovo another stolen piece of land was Albanian. --Marbus2 5 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not be ridiculous. Serbs were majority in Vojvodina in last 500 years and every land belong to its people, not to any country. Parts of Vojvodina only were ruled by Hungary and Croatia in parts of the history, but in other parts of the history they also were ruled by many other countries, such is Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, etc. Why would Croatia or Hungary have more "historical right" to rule over Vojvodina than Turkey? The entire "historical right" concept is ridiculous because the one who impose such "rights" usually base these "rights" on historical period in which his own country was largest and ignore other historical periods when his own coutry was small or did not even existed. Where were Croatia and Hungary 2000 years ago? Nowhere, of course... PANONIAN   (talk)  16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more that "every land belong to its people, not to any country" -- which is why Serbain claims to, say, Kosovo, are so weak. Profnjm 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why Serbain claims to, say, (independent) Republic of Srpska, are so strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.183.7 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You just prooved my point, first of all the only the reason Serbs have been a majority in Vojvodina is because the Ottaman empire killed and forced people of Croats and Hungarians to run away from these areas by burning peoples villages and there houses and after they conqured the piece of land they needed someplace for their slaves to live. After all shouldn't you be thanking the Ottamans, because thats the only reason you have so much people in Vojvodina. It increased even more when the Serbs decided to take a piece of Croatians Vojvodina after the second world war and i know for a fact that Croats were the majiority in its Vojvodina because my grandparents owned land in Vojvodina, my uncle had a owned a house and lived in Vojvodina but after world war two was kicked out by Serbs because they thought the Croatians Vojvodina should be theres and populated the area by bringing Serbs from proper Serbia. So how can you say that you were there for 500 years as a majority. what becaused you kicked out people from there homes over the years with help of your Turkish masters so you can say your a majority. Thats the problem with Serbs they have double standards, they say one thing for someone esle but another for themselves. So do you have any right on Vojvodina the awnser is no. Your countriy tryed to use that same tatic in the Serbian-Croatian 1990's war in the Croatian region of Krajna. Killing Croatians and forcing Croatians out of their homes in order to bring your people from Serbia to Krajna to make your population higher in Krajna so you could claim the region as yours, what did they call it "Ethnic cleansing" i think it was. An example right there of double standrads. In the end it was the serbs running away in their tanks from croatia back to Serbia at the end of the war. --Marbus2 5 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, you fascists never shut up do you? C-c-c-c 05:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speak for your self. --Marbus2 5 09:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I'm not fascist, and my country never had a fascist government rule it either. :)))))) C-c-c-c 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really?


 * Eh, I almost forgot about this discussion here. First of all, there was no many Croats in Vojvodina before the first half of the 20th century. That Slavs which lived in Vojvodina were ethnic Šokci, but no Croats. They were Croatized in the 20th century (as well as those in Slavonia). As example, I can tell you data about population of Vojvodina in the 1849-1860 period: there were 321,110 Serbs, 62,936 Bunjevci and Šokci, and only 2,860 Croats. Regarding the Ottomans, the historical decision of Serbs to make alliance with Ottomans instead to fight against them was indeed positive for the development of the Serbian people in Vojvodina region. Also, I did not heard that something named "Croatian Vojvodina" ever existed in history. You can check the census data (from all censuses in history) and you will see that Croats were never majority in Vojvodina. It is not me who say that Serbs were majority in Vojvodina in last 500 years, but all censuses performed during this period (including Ottoman defters, Habsburg censuses, and Yugoslav censuses). Maybe you should also say something about the crimes that Croatian fascists commited against Serb civilians in Vojvodina in WW2, to mention killed Serb civilians and burned Serbian villages. Also, was it Croatian state that ethnically cleansed 300,000 Serbs from Krajina? I think it was. PANONIAN   (talk)  02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The NDH cannot be considered a pure-Croatian state, since it hadn’t control of its own territory (divided between Italian and German forces), hadn’t a elected leader (Ante Pavelic, as the same way as Milan Nedic, was a Axis quisling) and in fact the NDH persecuted everyone that the Axis and the Usatsha saw as enemies, including Croatian anti-fascists (yes, Milosevic apologizers, they exist!) and Croatian partisans.


 * Croatia ≠ Ustasha.

Bunjevci and Šokci were not Croatized in the 20th century simply because of the fact that thay ARE Croats all the time! Ask them... How can they be Croatized if there were no Croats at all? Zemun was Croatian city mostly populated with Croats during many centuries until 20th century... 89.172.68.155 11:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater Serbia Ideals is to Domniate Eroupe
If it wasn't for the Croatian independance, Sloveian independance and the Bosnain war God knows how far the Serbs and the Communist Croatians would have gone to make Yugoslavia extend to all the way through europe until the whole Europe was under Yugoslavia. --Marbus2 5 10:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's about the least intelligent comment I've ever read. --Mihovil 00:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, where did you read this, I have lived in Srbija all my life & never heard. Man, where did you read this, I have lived in Srbija all my life & never heard. You know Great Britain is Velika Britanija & Great Srbija - Velika Srbija, why Greater - Tosic100 07:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

People, calm down.
This kind of stuff is why I stay far away from southeastern europe.... You may Norway and Sweden look like lovers. We are all one human race, so stop fighting among people who are barely different. Zazaban 02:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are right but how would you act if your first neighbour has expansionistic ideas which include a half of your country and it is continually happening over 100 years til now including this moment.
 * Radical T. Nikolić is new president of Serbian parlament
 * In his interview given to Media Servis (09.05.2007.) he said "I am chetnik and in the case of war I would be chetnik again... " and "...I dream about Greater Serbia..." and a lot of crap in the same manner. Hey man this is the present time in SEE. I should be taking a care of my flowers but I can't because there is something sad on my TV again and it's coming from the east. Half of Serbia is sick. The other democratic half needs a help from Europe. 83.131.128.160 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let him without sin cast the first stone.--Hadžija 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong translation!
The real translation for idea is GREAT SERBIA, not Greater. For this mistake translators who intentionaly lied are now being judged in Hague... Someone please change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.173.96 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is "Great Serbia", translation of "Velika Srbija". "Greater Serbia" would be "Veća Srbija". --Michael Angelkovich (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I get reactions, a friend of mine informed me that actually in English terminology "great" and "greater" here would mean the same. Here I found something which implies it as well. Now, before I revert myself, I would draw attention on Greater Albania, which I will use as a model here. --Michael Angelkovich (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No! The right translation would be "Great Serbia", as it is - "Velika Srbija". Not greater - "Veca Serbia"! Would it be the same for "Big Serbia" or "Bigger Serbia", or "Small Serbia" and "Smaller Serbia". As for the English terminology, so there will be no wrong understandings of this term: Serbia is not trying to get BIGGER or GREATER by taking over other peoples territories, Serbia is trying to be AS IT SHOULD BE - and that would be "GREAT SERBIA". But that would mean bigger (or greater) that Serbia IS NOW of course, but not greater than it should by history, by the law, by the justice, and by the God... Serbia is "Great" by DEFAULT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.231.244 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought first (about the translation), especially after these bad translations on Vojislav Seselj's tribunal. Yet, see this here. So far I got, they simply don't have other expression for "Velika" in this context. And even if "Greater" doesn't mean "velika" literally it would be the best approximation they have and its translation (my free interpretation) would be "šira Srbija", as an idea or ideology. [[Image:CClef.svg|10px]]  Mihajlo  [ talk ] 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes you are right. But I thought it would be better, in this case, to be translated different. There should not be any bigger problems if the article is good, and the term is well explained. I haven't red the whole text yet. What do you think, is it good??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.231.244 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a Mastodon
It's simply enormous, confusing, dull and hard to read and comprehend. Horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.226.144 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Role in the final dissolution of Yugoslavia paragraph removal by pisciotta11
The following paragraph should be deleted because it is not factual and misleading.

'''"Even so, no commentator or opponent has satisfactoraly attempted to explain why the unrecognised Republic of Serbian Krajina remained an entity outside the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with no interference from the Milošević administration regarding the short-lived republic's infrastructure, including currency, the education system and all other aspects of sovereignty." '''

First RSK president Milan Babić has stated that that Krajina policy was "driven" from Belgrade via the Serbian secret police. His replacement, Goran Hadžić, was a more pliant figure who was reported to have boasted that he was merely "a messenger for Slobodan Milošević". In other words, the statement that the Milošević administration 'did not interfere' with RSK is totally false. RSK was a product of the Milošević administration.

"Neither did any critic explain how the governing SPS did not object to the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, unrecognised to Serbian nationalists as non-Serbian and a territory in which Serbs did compose a small part of the population."

Serb intentions at the time of Macedonia's declaration of independence were not so clear-cut as this author presumes. In fact, Danko Maleski, Macedonia's foreign minister at the time, told a Washington, D.C. audience on Aug. 12, 1992 that his country had been warned by the European Community of a possible invasion. Further proof that Serbia's intentions leaned toward invasion are that the United Nations dispatched the "UN Preventive Deployment Force," (UNPREDEP) to Macedonia in 1993 specifically to prevent war in Bosnia-Hercegovina from spilling over into Macedonia.

"Also absent are the verses which explain why a party who advocated Greater Serbia would go into federation with a sister republic (Montenegro), another integral part of Serbian nationalist territory, only to accept it as a separate federal unit; and even after a change in policy from Montenegro's own governing party - originally fraternal to the SPS - allowed the region to function almost independently; in 1996, the Serbian currency had been rejected as the Deutsch Mark became the unofficial currency, and still the SPS confined itself to within its federal borders, even after Milošević took the highest office when he became the federation's president the following year."

"Verses" may be lacking because the matter at hand isn't poetry. As for the logic of the paragraph, consider this sentence: "even after a change in policy...[that]...allowed the region to function almost independently(emphasis added)."

--Pisciotta11 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DELETED?
Added:

From greaterserbia.blogspot.com:

Earliest documentation of the ethno-tribal structure of the Western Balkans as described in historical documents pertaining to the Dark & Middle Ages attempting to prove that all people who today identify as Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins including most people who today identify as Croats and Albanians are ancestral Serbs

=
WHY WAS THIS DELETED? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THIS IS A LEGITIMATE REFERENCE AND I'D LIKE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT'S BEING DELETED
 * Per Wikipedia policy on self-published sources - Verifiability. Alæxis¿question? 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article
Please note - this article is about an ideology only, in which we can add examples of measures which were taken to achieve the potential status quo. We can also touch on things that might have leaned towards the idea but this is not a "Let's list every Serb atrocity in history" article, there are various other articles for that: Yugoslav Wars, Srebrenica massacre, Balkan Wars, etc. Evlekis (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Off course not, but if numerous international reports connecting implementation of Greater Serbian ideology with ethnic cleansing, then this should be mentioned.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mladifilozof doesn´t show to be capable of editing any Serbia-related articles having a NPOV. He was warned and he shows no improvement. His edits are extremelly anti-Serb, I can freely call him an extremist. He should be mature enough to understand the various POV in such a complex articles such as the historic ones. Same way I could try to add sources how: "Great Serbian ideology" was excellent and lead to a liberation of territories thet were under opresive Empires, and together with other nations lead to the creation of many peoples dream that was Yugoslavia. See? That I can say that would be ridiculous to edit having in mind only one POV, as I did in my sentence, that is wy I consider Mladifilozof edits, just ridiculous. FkpCascais (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We must attempt to negotiate with all established users. To answer Mladifilozof, that's fine (your remark). Then they need to be appropriately incorporated into the relevant sections; standing alone, they mean very little. Unfortunately Mladifilozof, it is a paradox that even though WP dictates No original research, it is impossible to make this whole project (Wikipedia itself) function without applying occasional OR. We often need to be intellectually creative particularly when linking known subjects or events. It is like the silly phrase Never say "never", whoever declared this advice of wisdom broke the rule he was promoting in the process of the aphorism. OR on WP is another phenomenon on which we can not observe a "never" policy. If we do, we'd have the half the number of articles we have and radically reduce those that remain. This page is a good example, Greater Serbia is an ideology. Precisely what is and what is not performed with the intention of creating Greater Serbia is entirely the publication of people indulging in OR. I do raise my hands on this issue and admit that I am a guilty party. You can try to argue "ah, but we use sources such as news reports and statements by politicians, etc." but unless they can prove their suspicions, it remains circumstantial. Of course, it is all right to use those sources to corroborate that Ali Baba, Albania's Minister for Masturbation or someone else believes that "Serbia keeps its capital in Belgrade as part of a plot to one day create Greater Serbia" for reasons X,Y and Z - if that is what he happens to say and it can be proven! But you cannot use his humps and suspicions to state that this is what is actually happening! But the fact is that WP is full of this practice from end to end. Now if the "joint enterprise" had promulgated to the world outside that "Greater Serbia is our goal", then there would be no problem with many of the edits. But they didn't. They went about doing things another way and stated another list of reasons for their measures and this led the apologists for their rival belligerents to cry "Greater Serbia" on various other suspicions. Now right or wrong, you will find that sympathisers of Serbs will constantly uproot the remarks against them by publishing their responses. Nobody denies the ideology, and sources support this. But linking certain events to this ideology is an extremely shady venture. But they do anyway and that is why we have editor conflict. Now when someone publishes a 19th century map of a proposed Great Serbian Kingdom and we see that this incorporates more recently populated Serbian areas in the north, traditionally settled Serbian areas in the centre, east and west, and areas once controlled by former Serbian empires in the south, what am I to assume? How else do we explain the ideas behind the goal? If you want other areas of OR across WP, look at the various articles on political parties who adopt one ideology (which is labelled de jure) but where others have added a separate ideology de facto. Who is anybody to do this? Only a party can dictate its ideologies. The whole left wing right wing malarkey is nothing more than an abstract concept artificially devised by self-proclaimed expert commentators. So OR must be used in some parts if only to clarify matters. There is another way around it: take out "minimun of one of three reasons" and just explain that these areas are of interest to Serb nationalists and this feat links that region with Serb interest, etc. and the rest falls into place (leaving readers to make up their own minds). Evlekis (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Mladifilozof main goal is to demonstrate "Serbian occupation" of Kosovo, and how Kosovo did nort belonged to Serbia. He is willing to edit way beyond, just to add sentencies or maps where is shown that Kosovo is not Serbian, and that Albanians suffered greatly. Then, when warned, he adds one or two sentences where he "acts" as "Serbian neutral" then, allways, without exception, returns to the same. All his edits go around that purpose (Kosovar-Albanian cause). FkpCascais (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair though FkpCascais, Mladifilozof has not worked on that content over the past three days and has not engaged in edit wars in scenarios where his contributions were altered; and he does communicate, politely responding to all civilised messaging. I believe that we can all reach a mutual idea for presentation using the talk pages. Evlekis (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, FkpCascais, be polite and Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have my views, like any other human, but we are not here to discuss it. Thank you Evlekis for your explanation. We will make this article better and more informative.--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt. And I am comenting your edits, mladifilozof. And, Evlekis, please respect the order of the comments. You put your comment in between. I´ll give him the benefit of doubt (again). But, I will express my opinion whenever I feel it needs, despite hurting some other editors. Mladifilozof has been higly desrespectfull, and is not going to be his recent edits that are going to convince me that easily. FkpCascais (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wy do you, Mladifilozof, find me not polite? FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Evlekis, don´t get fooled, he discusses now because more people get involved. You should see him before. He also stoped because he was one step from being blocked, so he has been more carefull, and "comunicative" because some admins did understood what was in his mind, and recomended him that. He also reported you without any discussion. That´s certainly "very polite". Even calling you (he called me too) vandals. Please, I know very well who are we dealing here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can be sure I wouldn´t say all this if he was some "inocent" or well "good intentioned contibuting" editor. FkpCascais (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I read his "new" version, and I can´t see even one sentence introduced by Mladifilozof where you don´t feel his deep hateriot towards Serbia and it´s people. FkpCascais (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When someone insulting me, or deleting my work without prior discussion, off course I will report him. But when someone wanted to talk, then I am happy to talk.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted paragraph
We have a confusing situation. I put back the following paragraph, but User:FkpCascais put it out:

--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary aim of uniting all Serbs and Serbian lands in one state in its radical form is interpreted as including areas where Serbs are merely a significant minority, as well as where there has been no continuous Serbian presence down the centuries. Each region is included for a minimum of one of three reasons: firstly, the land may occupy a region where the Serbs originally settled upon arrival in the Balkans (e.g. Raška or Montenegro); secondly, the land may once have been controlled by the medieval Serbian states (e.g. Kosovo or Macedonia); and thirdly, the land is where numerous Serbs later may later have settled (e.g. present-day Vojvodina or Eastern Slavonia).
 * And where are the sources supporting it? Alæxis¿question? 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are "merely insignificant". I hope others intervene. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, please reference your contribs. You did a lot of revisions to this article, without a single source.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical perspective
This paragraph is needed, but it is too long. Maybe it should contain only historical perspective before Načertanije (1844). The rest to be merged into separate paragraphs for each period. Something can be put into article introduction also, now it is too short.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s.this talk page needs archiving.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see it good this way because gives the direct relation of the ideology and it´s supporters with the historical events, from the older, until the most recent ones. It´s a Historical perspective of the ideology, not the Serbian history. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Presentation
Once again, we are all getting carried away with the purpose of this article. There are countless articles whose purpose is to list Serbian activity throughout the last century and a half but this article really needs to stand to represent the ideology, only referring to real-life events when there is a clear link between the incident and the ideology (the article's subject). For anybody to try attaching just about every Serbian activity in recent history to one of the goals of its most extreme wing is not only inviting ridicule but is indulging in WP:OR on a magnitude greater than any witnessed.

We first need to establish some of the facts about 19th century Serbia.

1817 was not the year that Serbia achieved its independence, but the year it formed its principality. It followed a period of two major revolutions (plus one interphase) dating back to 1803. The Porte did not fully recognise this entity until 1830 (after negotiating with Serbian authorities during the two years prior to this). The principality in turn only encompassed the Palashuk of Smederevo (Belgrade included). Only in the years following 1830 did it gradually expand southward, it did not go into Bosnia, nor Hungary which was then to the north of Belgrade.

Austria-Hungary was only formed in 1867 and any reference to the AH-empire for a time before this is wholly erroneous.

1867 is when Serbia finally expelled all Ottoman personnel from its entity. Two years later, its own constitution defined it as independent.

1878 was the year that Serbia, Montenegro and Romania all achieved independence in the eyes of the outside world, Ottomans included. This was ratified at the Treaty of Berlin and all resulting from the Russo-Turkish war which had begun the previous year.

To state that the idea of Greater Serbia goes back to 1844 is somewhat unfounded given that the Serb nation had begun to work on independence from 1803 (when the first revolution began). The nation must have had some vague idea as to what it wanted. If anything, the 1844 document outlined the boundry. Even so, if it were secret then it has never officially been admitted and everything we write about Greater Serbia might be 100% circumstantial because others may use cover-up tactics to deny the case.

We need to be extra-cautious how we define the events of the 1990s, especially where Milošević is concerned. Perhaps linking Greater Serbia with Šešelj may be more appropriate but those who attributed the actions of Milošević to Greater Serbia (eg. the media) clearly have no idea as to what the Greater Serbian state is. Milošević in reality was not even qualified to manage a Greater Serbia. His actual misadventure (to use OR myself now) was endeavouring to be the centre of a sphere of influence which encompassed certain Serbian ideological lands though it was not necessary that an organisation had to be Serb to fit into this enterprise; this is something wholly incompatible with the mindset of Greater Serbia supporters. I'll tell you this much, if I were a Greater Serb supporter, I'd personally have tried to assassinate Milošević - just like Tito, what he was doing wasn't taking me where I wanted to be!!!!! But I'm not, so it is irrelevant. Meanwhile, all this talk of "first they do this, then they do that, and next thing...the border opens, Hello Greater Serbia"? Wrong. That is unfounded; it originates from nothing more than the voices in the heads of certain journalists and international politicians. A good example is Nagorno-Karabagh, that started life when the Soviet Union was dissolving and it declared itself independent from Azerbaijan in 1988 (when the USSR was formed). As an enclave of ethnic Armenians, the cries from Azeris and apologists for Armenia's opponents were crying the same old Armenian nationalist state formation nonsense. Sure enough, Yerevan has a hand in the activities of Nagorno, but does this make it all one Greater state? No it doesn't. And now 22 years later, Azerbaijan having no hope of seeing NATO change its nappies like certain other nations and nobody to support and sponsor an Operation Storm style "retaking" of Azeri territory, I'd say Nagorno is in a healthy state. So why hasn't it "opened up" to join Armenia? This is one of dozens of examples. OR is a beautiful thing but it gets you nowhere when you try to use it in the official language of sanction.

Furthermore, Greater Serbia is not based on "expansion". Once again, it is an ideology - you either have it, or you don't. I do not believe that if this goal was achieved, Velika Srbija would be the official name. The point is we cannot mix fact with idea. In 1844, Serbia had no international recognition. What is there to expand? Nothing. Who would honestly suggest breaking away from rulers in gradual stages if the opportunity came to go independent together all at once!

I hope this helps with the article's outlook. Evlekis (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Evlekis, I´m just seing more of the same. And the de-contextualised citation (from Patrijarh Pavle!) are outragious. He just doesn´t know to edit an encyclopedic article. If I stood for the "Greater Serbia" apologists view, and writte as he does, we will have two completely different articles, and that is just not possible. I do have a strange power to perfectly understand the words of any side and the reasons for them. Understanding the use of propaganda is way too easy for me. I condemn any kind of hateriot, and my aim in life is way bigger than just to have a "nice" reputation here, the fight agains blindness is way more important for me. If Serbs were black, Mladifilozof would be named the racist of the year, because that is exactly the tendency of his edits. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wy not including the Serbian Empire map? Has way more to do with the subject than the Pricipate of Serbia one. Both? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Evlekis, being the plan secret, doesn´t necessarily mean that didn´t had followers. From the ones that new it (politicians, secret societies...), until the others that sub-contiently desired it (people). It really was a exagerated plan made from the result of the wish that already existed within the population (some part, at least) and it was before the plan was even created.
 * OK, I will follow your advice and give the benefit of doubt to the editor, but I want to see much more correct sentencies and less acusational tone. It really wasn´t the ideology, but real people (persons, not Serbs in general) that did some atrocities. This article is not the only problematic, and I didn´t wanted to loose time here with this. I´m not a editing policeman, neither a Serbian nationalist, and I may wrongly give the impression of such by demanding a NPOV edits and involving here and in other Serbia-related articles edited by the editor in question here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to see an end to another propagandistic tecnique that is used by Mladifilozor (his edits), that consists represent the same fact in different ways as the needs of the direction of his propaganda desires. Exemple: When he wants to talk about the Albanian massacres comited by Serbs, he uses a map where a "big" Kingdom of Serbia is showed, where contains Northern half of Albania, as well; but when only wants to point the size of Serbian Kingdom, he allways adores to use the minimalistic Serbia map... That is just propaganda, and the most basic one, not even elaborated (althou he does know to be more "elaborated" also). Fighting the Greater Serbia propaganda with even more propaganda just isn´t the solution. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite logical. When we are talking about Greater Serbia then we use a greater Serbian map, but when we are talking about regular Serbia then we use regular maps.--Mladifilozof (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FkpCascais was not talking about which maps we use here, that was the subject for Talk:Kingdom of Serbia. He is annoyed because this article at present lists Serbian atrocities in wars all too well-known. He is also right. The article is about an ideology and about any practical real-world scenarios which are related to the mindset. As such, one can mention the wars in which the Serbian nation found itself (provided there is a clear link to GS) but there really is no need to stress the individual incidents (Prizren grandmothers massacre or Trebinje petrol station bombing of Serbs whose paternal great-aunties were half-Muslim and other CGSM). Those chapters do not belong here. Mention the wars, yes, but the alleged "war crimes", no! Evlekis (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or we can add to the stupidity: 17th November 1993, Serb army led by Jovan Jovanović crossed into Makarska and opened fire on town mental institution reception waiting room killing 67 ethnic Croatian non-Serbs in Phase 16 of plan to create Greater Serbia. Or maybe, 3rd January 2001, Serb Chetniks led by Mirko Mirković and Boško Bošković raid Preševo's second largest dental surgery and spray bullets into family of 39 ethnic Albanian non-Serbs as part of bid to attach Preševo Valley into Velika Srbija, etc.

These were jokes, but that is the sort of thing we would be doing if we overstress this article. Evlekis (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POV and lack of references
This article's lack of references and obvious POV in some places makes it not suitable for Wikipedia standards. I suggest a complete and proper rewrite instead of that patchwork approach: a Croatian opinion here, a Serb answer there... Maybe that is the way how discussions on the Balkans work, but this is not acceptable for Wikipedia.--80.219.119.16 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The references that do exist don't mention Greater Serbia, the maps have no sources and are completely OR... this entire article is a fabrication. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

 * Mention the wars, yes, but the alleged "war crimes", no!

If UN report and many other reports directly connects a Greater Serbia project and war crimes of ethnic cleansing, then it is necessarily to mention it in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don´t opose, if there is connection, it can be included, the problem is: What "Greater Serbia" project? The country wasn´t even called Serbia, back then! FkpCascais (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The war crimes were all for the purpose of inventing Greater Serbia. Can I recommend we merge this article with Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as it is known that that country was really a de facto "Greater Serbia" in disguise, everyone knows that Serbia was the dominant partner, it had invaded Kosova from days of former Yugoslavia and Montenegro was forced into it under durress: fearing the ethnic cleansing and genocide Serbs were comitting in places like Racak and Srebrenicca. Once Milosevic went, Montenegro left the federation. FR Yugoslavia was a de facto Greater Serbia. End. Merge? Votes please.


 * Support. For reasons listed above and in the name of democracy and concensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Rights Believer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked user, Balkan related articles banned. -Tadija (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

War crimes
I see Greater Croatia, Greater Serbia and Greater Albania articles. BUT. WHERE IS Greater Montenegro!?!? Those evil people always wanted all of the Balkans for themselves, pulling the strings of Croats, Serbs and Albanians behind the scenes, making them fight each other. Fucking Montenegrins. :/ 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

images




Someone repeatedly changing first image with another. First image shows Serbian aspirations before the wars 1912-1918 and it is directly connected with the subject of the article. This is article about Greater Serbia and its territorial aspirations.

Second image shows aspirations of Balkan states before the wars 1912-1918 and it is only indirectly connected with the subject of the article. This is not article on Greater Bulgaria or Greater Greece. Focus of this article is on Greater Serbia. This image is more proper for Balkan Wars article. It could also be used in this article, but as a second image, not to replace the first one.--Mladifilozof (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the article we have more than enough "Greater Serbian" map aspirations. This exeple is good so it can be showed also the aspirations of other neighburing states as well, even if some, like Albania, Croatia or Hungary, are missing. I hope your point is not to show just Serbs as irredentist, or, is it? FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And what´s the point of the "Serbia without Kosovo" map? That´s the current Serbia (yes, I´m not living in dreams...) map, so what it has to do with the subject? Are you acusing the current governament (pos-Milosevic) of persuing the "Greater Serbia" plan? (???) Or, this is just you show-off? FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, first image is of great importance for the article on Greater Serbia. You can put second image also, but do not replace an existing one. Image of Serbia without Kosovo is good ilustration for "Failure of the Greater Serbian project" but it is not of great importance for the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First image is highly innacurate, it only makes sence in a Balkan sphere. FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Second image places things more in context I think. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vuk K
I think what the linguist is talking about here is an attempt to define what is "Serb". He uses the only tool he has, language, to do it and does a fine job nevertheless. The people in the areas he mentions can definitively be called Serb. He never called for a unification of all Serbs in one state, so I don't know why he is included in this article. He never asked for the growth of the Serbian realm, but for the reunification of it culturally. He never suggests increasing Serbian borders beyond areas populated by Serbs (into Croatia, Albania, Macedonia or Bulgaria etc). I don't really see how culturally uniting people who speak the same language as being related to Greater Serbia... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course he didn´t, but this article has so many issues wrong... I only menaged to compose the initial "Historical perspective" part. Everything alse is edited by Mladifilozof, and he is clearly making edits that include in the article all kind of non-related material. FkpCascais (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all right, so long as you do good edits and see they aren't reverted without reason, eventually the article will shine. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture
This picture is...I don't know how to say it. Even the worst and biggest Serbian nationalists don't have such a view of Greater Serbia, and it's certainly...misleading to say the least, to imply this is the territory claimed by proponents of Greater Serbia.

I've skimmed through the archives and found no previous discussion or explanation for why this picture is used. In my opinion it shouldn't be there; it mixes Serbian nationalist territorial aspirations with the territories of various Serbian (medieval!) states, thus depicting neither accurately. I'm most likely going to replace it in a day or two; I just wanted to write this prior to making my changes because I'm not sure if this would constitute a major or a minor edit and in case there's some blindingly obvious argument for keeping the picture that I haven't noticed. Moravats (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Title Change
I do not know how to change the title, but this must also be done. Australianhistorian


 * Wiki policy is to use the most common name among reliable sources. The translation of Veca/Velika to Greater/Great does not play a role in the article name. See Google Scholar:  and Google Books:   However as "Great Serbia" is a significant alternative name it should be included in the lead section.  ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Milosevic, nationalist? What?
The Communist regime that took power in Yugoslavia in 1945, was most certainly, an anti-Serbian regime. Only one of Tito's leading Politbeurau was a Serb. Even in the aftermath of the Croatia Ustasa genocide upon the Serbs, they still had an overral majority in Bosnia and large parts of Croatia. In order to solve this issue of Serbia as a Federal Reuplic within the Federation having too much territory the Communists did a number of things. They invented these autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, to try and undermine Serbian vote in the Federal level. They invented false nationalities which had never existed before; Montinegrins and Macedonians. They did an unimaginable thing by declaring that all Serbs of Islamic faith were now Muslim by nationality. They pressured for the creation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It doesn't take a genious to understand what their agenda was. Marginalise the Serbs from their position of dominance. Josip "Tito" Broz championed this ideology and the Communists (all of them), until the late 80s followed suite with his ideology. When Tudjman and Izetbegovic turned a political 180 degrees, Milosevic did not. He still followed the same politics and continued glorifying Tito. Milosevic did not aid the Krajina Serbs and he hit the Bosnian Serbs with sanctions and blockades during the war, he did all this to sway Western opinion in his favour and consolidate his own power by "making friends" abroad with anti-Serbian agendas. The aspects of the charges brought against him in the Hague about creating a Great Serbia were totally false, just like a large number of the Serbs sentenced in the Hague. Vojislav Seselj was THE ONLY advocate of a Great Serbia and the only politician who's political party openly supported this idea. He again; expalins it all during his own trial: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617# stating that only HE can be ever judged for a plan or idea surrounding a Greater Serbia as he was the only advocate of the ideology in modern times. Milosevic was not a nationalist, nor was he any kind of Great Serb or statesman. This part of the article is based on Western propaganda which condemned and deamonised Serbia unjustly during the 90s and the charges made by the NATO - US dominated Hague can hardly be used in any sense of the word "legitimate" for objective intellectual works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removal of the sourced text and your comments above fairly drip with POV. Step back and let editors without axes to grind do the editing here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What sourced text? Where do you get your sources from? Find one concrete peace of evidence that clearly shows that Slobodan Milosevic actively supported a Great Serbia agenda. Had Milosevic not "died" in the Hague his trial would still be being dragged out today because there was no concrete evidence against him, not one speech, not one order? Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the issue at hand-the issue at hand is your writing and your methodology. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem, Australianhistorian, is that despite most of what you say may be trouth, for you to change it in the article, you must have some sources. FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FkpCascais,Kintetsubuffalo I have sourced my edits, if you had actually read my previous posts you would have listened to Vojislav Seselj's detailed explanation of the Great Serbian ideology: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617#. I have sourced my argument against the error in translation that is "Greater Serbia" read my above posts. If Great Britain = Velika Britanija, Velika Srbija = Great Serbia. The use of the word "greater" is deamonising propaganda and is factually INCORRECT, and it cannot be used in this article. Great Serbia is NOT an expansive/imperialist ideology, the ideology is based on informing Serbian populations of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Athiest religions that they are Serbs who under pressure through hundreds of years of Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian and Vatican influence have either forced or enticed them to convert religion, and then further capitalised upon that by either forcing/enticing them to identify themselves on the basis of their religion as different nationalities. Religion does not change nationality. That is Great Serbian ideology. The title and article must be changed.

Australianhistorian (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.101.149 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand you perfectly, but I think that the problem is that English language (wrongly, or not) has adopted the term "Greater" for this case... I know, it´s never late to make things right, and if the mass uses something, doesn´t necessarily mean it´s that way right, but then, it would be better for you to gather all info on it that you can and propose a title change, here, on this talk page. If there is no agreement reached on the issue, you can allways ask for WP:DR (dispute resolution), or something like, but here things are more like a slow process... I would, in the meantime, propose to add the explication in the text, something like: Greater Serbia, literally meaning "Great Serbia" <:ref>,... I would support your point on this because I understand you, but see also User:Producer point in his answer in the previos section on this talk page... FkpCascais (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The English language has accepted this error in translation due to a number of factors. Not understanding the concept of Velika Srbija, OR simply recognising Serbian territories as Central Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, with a possible tolerance to Montenegro being part of Serbia, seeing Tito's administrative division of Yugoslavia the only logical boarders in the event of a fragmentation of the State. OR, an attempt to deamonise Serbs during the 90s by placing the same description of some aspirations of nationalist Serbs with the same description of Hitler's Greater Germany. All three of these combine with some merit to the incorrect translation of Velika Srbija. To Producer, those "reliable" sources are all written by non-Serbs. If you want to play this game of thinking they are truly objective, ok, I can't fight you anymore. However, the title in your argument should also be changed to Greater/Great and the article should have detailed explanation as to the divided nature and lack of concession over the English name of the ideology.


 * If the same people that deamonised the Serb's during the 90s, sanctioned them, bombed them, murdered them, tore up their country in, let's say, two pieces (Serbia/Kosovo and Metohija), call this century old ideology that means Great Serbia, and has no imperialist ambitions, the same name that they gave Hitler's Germany, and you think that is accurate, objective and correct, ok. That will not change the fundamentals of the ideology, that will not change its nature, that will not change informed peoples understanding of it, however, it will continue to be damaging propaganda towards Serbs, for every uninformed person that googles this website, scans the title and introduction, and then closes off the tab with an opinion that Serb's are comparable to Nazis.

Australianhistorian (talk)10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In English the term "greater" is used when discussing irredentist concepts. It is not limited to Serbia and is applied to other countries such as Bulgaria and Italy. In Serbo-Croatian the term "velika" is used for the same countries. It's not a mistranslation as you would like it to appear. Frankly your views on why "greater" was chosen is ridiculous and irrelevant. I'm reverting your edit relabeling "Greater Serbia" to "Greater/Great Serbia" as it is not the article name. ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 12:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason it is applied to those nations such as Italy and Bulgaria is because their concepts of Great Italy/Bulgaria are founded on EXPANSIVE/IMPERIALIST ideas. They seek to expand into territories that are no populated by their own people, and classically ANNEX them. Velika Srbija, Greater Serbia, as explained by its only modern creator, Vojislav Seselj, is founded on the ideas of national enlightenement and the use of historical evidence to prove to Muslims by nationality, Catholic Serbs, and Macedonians that they are Serbs, who under hundreds of years of foriegn influence been either forced or enticed to acknowledge themselves as different nationalities on the basis of religion. There is a fundamental difference between the concept of Great Serbia and other nations GREATER aspects, that is irrefutable evidence here, and I will not rest until it has been corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm no Greater Bulgaria is based on the idea that Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians. This is similar to the idea that as you put "Muslims by nationality, Catholic Serbs, and Macedonians [...] are Serbs". The only difference is "Greater Serbia" is more ambitious. Greater Italy wishes to include Italians living in nearby countries. ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what Australianhistorian means, mostly, that the initial idea of "Velika Srbija" was around the liberation of the still occupied territories under Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. In that period, what really existed was a "Small Serbia" that had more than half of Serbs living in the surrounding Empires. So by that, the naming of "Velika Srbija" is really meant to be for the Kingdom that united with those territories would be creating what would be a "normal Serbia", but is called "Velika" mostly because it is bigger than all the principalities or kingdoms that Serbia had since its liberation from the Ottomans, that were big as was "Beogradski Pašaluk". I think that Australianhistorian is wanting to make the idea of liberation clear (in oposition to conquest), so it can be differenciated of other "greater" ideologies that, in many cases, created a big number of wars and victims.
 * But, on the other side, and something PRODUCER has been trying to point out, is that this article is about the "Greater Serbia" that was used in real irredentist way too, as in perspective of many other nationalities that didn´t felt the Serbian "liberation" in same way as Serbs were... But, we are entering here into territories that are extremely hard to sumarise, what for one is liberation, for the other is opresion. We have to keep both perspectives allways in mind here.
 * Resumingly, I think the name "Greater" has to stay because that is how it is used in English. What this article needs is more work on that historical perspective. I did my best in the "Historical perspective" section, but it could/should have more sections created, specially regarding different periods. That would possibly balance the article and solve this (more/less) irredentist question... FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the old nonsense see-saw. Croatian nationalists constantly scream at the top of their voice that SFR Yugoslavia was "anti-Croatian", while Serbian nationalist claim it was "anti-Serbian". Most likely it was neither, but a state trying to balance the two as best as possible - hence the paradoxical accusations from both sides (!). The communists were afraid that Slovene and Croatian separatism might break the country apart, as the latter become averse to Serbian dominance (as was the case in the first Yugoslavia) - so they constitutionally limited the power and influence of the Serbian federal state. This however, brought about the resurgence of - Serbian nationalism in 1986/87. Slobodan Milošević, despite being an undoubted socialist himself, came to power in SR Serbia on a nationalist platform, creating a powerful national Serbian state that in turn brought about the "first-Yugoslavia syndrome" in the western republics - causing their secession.


 * If someone is trying to rename/delete the article, don't. It'd never pass. "Greater" is not only used everywhere on Wiki but is incomparably more common in Englsih usage in this case as well (WP:COMMONNAME). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, just a classic Croatian that tries to blame the 90s on the Serbs. "HA-HA-HA-HA". Yugoslavia was most definitely NOT a balanced state: In the aftermath of the Croatia Ustasa genocide upon the Serbs, they still had an overral majority in BiH and large parts of Croatia.

To solve the issue of Serbia as a Federal Republic within the Federation having too much territory the Communists invented these autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, to try and undermine Serbian vote in the Federal level. They invented false nationalities which had never existed before; Montinegrins and Macedonians. They declared all Serbs of Islamic faith were now Muslim by nationality. They pressured for the creation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Their agenda was clear: Marginalise the Serbs from their position of dominance.

If Milosevic came to power on a "nationalist" platform, what kind of platform did Tudjman and Izetbegovic come to power on? What were the Serbs in the Croatian Federal Republic reminded of Tudjman made the same Ustasa checkerboard, their coat of arms, that hung on the gates of the Jasenovac death camp? When he started writing books, minimising the Croatian Nazi genocide of Serbs during ww2? Direktor, Slovenia was not really a case that had much debate in it, over 90% of the population was Slovenian and they were the only constituent people in that Federal Republic. Macedonia the same, the only constituent people. Franjo Tudjman destroyed Yugoslavia, not Milosevic. He ILLEGALLY changed the status of the Serbs in Croatia from a constituent people to a minority, and subsequently declared independence. No historian, no politician, can argue, in any manner, that Franjo Tudjman and the Croatians started the conflict in Croatia and were the primary instigators of the break up of Yugoslavia. Why is it that Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces but Dalmatia and Krajina/Slavonia were not? Because Tito and the Communists wanted it that way. Stop spraying your sad propaganda here. SFR Yugoslavia was blatantly anti-Serbian and the Croats had much more fault than the Serbs in the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Serbs tried to prevent it from breaking apart, Croats worked on its fragmentation. End of story. Australianhistorian (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC).


 * No, they did not all declare themselves "Serbs of Islamic faith", the Serbs (and Croats) considered the Muslims their own; however the majority of Muslims themselves did not. On the note of constituency, your talking about how the Serbs lost their status as constituent people in Croatia (12 percent), yet deny the Muslims the same in Bosnia and Herzegovina (43 percent) and ignore that Kosovo effectively lost its autonomy in 1989 illegally through constitutional changes that passed without 2/3rds majority thanks to Milosevic's puppets. "Why is it that Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces but Dalmatia and Krajina/Slavonia were not?" Better autonomy rather than republic, if anything Tito delayed the Yugoslav wars. ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just because they did not declare themselves "Serbs of Islamic faith" doesn't mean that is not what they were. They had a collective sense of themselves through their faith, but they weren't retarded and they new their origin. What the hell are you talking about, the Muslims in Bosnia had constituency before Tito declared them a nationality? Slobodan Milosevic did have 2/3 vote when he changed the status of Kosovo, but that is irrelevant in itself because those false boarders were setup by a Communist regime. Don't you give me your "if anything Tito delayed the Yugoslav wars" if he treated Serbs as equals and wasn't anti-Serb, then he would not have relocated Bosnian Serbs to Vojvodina after ww2, he would have left them in Bosnia where they had a majority AFTER the Croatian genocide against the Serbs, and taken people from Sumadija, he would not have invented autonomies which were absolutely unthinkable, principally on land that had been part of Serbia since the 7th century. And finally the Serbs DID NOT "LOSE" their constituency in Croatia, because the only way to lose their autonomy by law, is for them to decide it for themselves. Their constituency was taken from them illegally, and that is why the war in Croatia started. Australianhistorian (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić, četnički komandant je poslao izvješće Draži Mihajloviću, šefu vrhovne komande:

''Istrjebljivanje muslimana s područja Pljevlje, Čajniče i Foče dovršeno je. Operacije su izvršene precizno prema izdanim naredbama i direktivama: onda je usledilo čišćenje: sva su muslimanska sela s tri navedena područja potpuno sažgana, tako da nema ni jedne neizgorele kuće. U vreme našeg operisanja tu je sve muslimansko pučanstvo uništeno, bez obzira na dob ili spol. Žrtve: oko 1200 muslimanskih branitelja i osam hiljada drugih žrtava, žena, staraca i dece. Među muslimanima moral je, dosledno potpuno opao.

Muslimani su delovali potpuno izgubljeni u teroru i panici što su je širili naši četnici''.

Major Zaharija Ostojić izvještava Mihajlovića:

''Juče završio akciju do Ustikoline i rebene Jahorine. Ustaše tučene dobro. Po dosadanjim podatcima oko 500 mrtvih i oko 1000 do 2000 muslimana poklanih. Sve trupe dobri borci, a još bolji pljačkaši izuzev Pavla. Pad Foče ima dobrog odjeka. Muslimani u masama beže u Sarajevo. Naredio sam povratak trupa kući, a ja sam od juče u Kalinoviku i rešavam ostala pitanja sa Ištvanom i Jevdjevićem. Sada su zadovoljni. 1002.''

Bačović izvještava Mihajlovića:

''Vratio sam se sa puta po Hercegovini. Četiri naša bataljona, oko 900 ljudi, krenuli su 30 avgusta preko Ljubuškog, Imotskog, Podgore i kod Makarske izbili na more. 17 ustaških sela spaljeno. 900 ustaša ubijeno. Nekoliko katoličkih sveštenika živih odrano. Prvi put nakon sloma poboli srpsku zastavu u more i klicali kralju i Draži Mihajloviću. Naši gubici minimalni.''

(Ante Beljo; YU-GENOCID; str. 22; Hišak, Toronto 1990, Galerija 'Stećak' Klek/Zagreb, drugo izdanje) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.166.170 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Serious Problems
Vojislav Seselj, modern creator of "VELIKA SRBIJA" "GREAT SERBIA" explains the concept of this ideology in his trial which can be viewed on this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617# and as far as linguistics is concerned; the entire West have a common misconception as to the name of this ideology: Great Britain, in Serbian is "Velika Britanija", Great Serbia is "Velika Srbija". Using the term "Greater" is in effect propaganda implying EXPANSIVE/IMPERIALIST tendencies of the ideology. The ideology is based on informing Serbian populations of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Athiest religions that they are Serbs who under pressure through hundreds of years of Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian and Vatican influence have either forced or enticed them to convert religion, and then further capitalised upon that by either forcing/enticing them to identify themselves on the basis of their religion as different nationalities. Religion does not change nationality. That is the core, basic focus of the concept of "Velika Srbija". Watch that video and understand that Velika Srbija is NOT an expansive ideology, looking to "invade" or "ethnically cleanse" other nationalities but to nationaly ENLIGHTEN them and prove to those Serbs of different religions that foreigners made them falsely identify themselves. I'll be making more fixes but for the time being the name of this article and throught the article MUST be changed to Great Serbia, not "Greater" Serbia. Watch the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2010‎


 * The above argument is fallacious. First, the proposed name "Great Serbia" is not analogous to the name "Great Britain."  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is so called because a majority of its territory is an island named "Great Britain".  See Great Britain: Derivation of "Great".  The name has nothing to do with a nation encompassing peoples of British ethnic identity; the fact that the island was named after a tribe that lived there centuries ago has nothing to do with modern Britishness, and Britishness is unrelated to the question of whether an individual is decended from that tribe.  Rather, the modern British identity is an identity of citizenship; it incorporates most of the multiple ethnicities that have been united under one crown.  In other words, the name of the identity comes from the name of the territory, not the other way around.  See British people.


 * Second, define what it is to be a Serb. Define nationality.  You assert that "other nationalities" must be "enlightened" about their true nationality; to evaluate that claim, we must agree on a definition of "true nationality".  See National identity.  Further, how would you treat the Sorbs?  These are the people whose ancestors stayed in central Europe when the ancestors of the modern Serbs moved south; they are descended from the same ancient tribe.  The argument that Sorbs are not Serbs because their language is West Slavic rather than South Slavic holds no water, because the separation occurred before the western and southern language families were firmly differentiated.  On the other hand, perhaps you define Serbness by the language spoken.  If that definition prevails, then (for example) Rod Blagojevich isn't a Serb.  Or is Serbness defined by membership in the Serbian Orthodox church?  Obviously not, because, as you say, "religion does not change nationality."  What does define nationality? If Galip Sokullu is descended from Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, also known as Mehmed-paša Sokolović, does that make Galip Sokullu a Serb? 74.73.238.142 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War
According to Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lowest possible quality text
this input is of lowest possible quality and it is NOT written, and has not any of encyclopedic value whatsoever. to cut it short, please pay attention to the "argumentation" and fashion of, par example, portraying vuk karadžić's pan-serbism:

in first chapter, there's a ill written narrative about vuk's ambition to describe all štokavian speakers as serbs; that hypothesis is corroborated with his quote, in which karadžić clearly states otherwise: "There are at least 5 million people who speak the same language, but by religion they can be split into three groups ... Only the first 3 million call themselves Serbs, but the rest will not accept the name".

the language is the same, speakers is divided in three groups, only one of them call themselves Serbs, the others do not accept that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.137.60 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

slobodnavojvodina.org article
I read the article from that website, and I don´t see anywhere the word fascist mentioned... The other edits from the same IP who introduced the source were almost insignificant (irredentist already covers expansionist, etc.). However, the article from that website seems fine for sourcing parts of our article here on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that Fkp. If this was Dnevnik maybe, but it just looks like an blog to me. What editorial oversight does it have? There are plenty of scholarly publications that discuss this topic, no need to use a blog. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of the comments of Patriarch Pavle to this article
The relevance of the comment of Patriarch Pavle to the topic of this article have been questioned. I have reverted the deletion of his comment because I consider the sources make clear that the the position of the Church on this issue is relevant. I tender as evidence a sample of reliable sources:, , and. No doubt the position of the Church on this issue has been important, and this is supported by multiple reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

SFRY ethnic composition map
The problematic thing I can see with regard to the map is the fact that its published by local authors - and in the middle of the Yugoslav Wars (1993!). This most certainly brings it into doubt. If evidence is brought forward of any incorrect information anywhere, with regard to the 1981 census, I move to strike it from enWikipedia. That would clearly identify it as slanted. I recommend comparing the map to the 1981 census.

All that said, I looked it over and personally deem the map probably accurate.

P.s. It doesn't seem like the map is properly licensed anyway. Placing this template on will probably have it deleted. -- Director  ( talk )  08:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tnx. Map has lot of errors, as I stated on map talk page; ''this map is a forgery, it should be removed.
 * These maps are correct (no matter if they are from 1991, percentage can not drop from 50+% to zero in 10 years).
 * http://www.bosnaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/1991bihudiosrba.jpg
 * http://ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikimedia/images/wikipedia/sr/8/84/Etnicka_karta_Udela_Hrvata_91.gif
 * Most obvious are eastern (and western) Slavonia and some municipalities in BiH... --Čeha (razgovor) 09:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the point is moot because of copyright anyway... It would certainly be nice to have a municipality-by-municipality map of the 1981 census, back from when we can say, with reasonable certainty, that no tampering occurred anywhere. In SVG format.. now that would be something (instant shower of barnstars :)). I think it would be an interesting subject for a student project. -- Director  ( talk )  09:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that map like this exists, official map from 81. This is just its fake version, which somebody tampered... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you find it, please do post it. -- Director  ( talk )  15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Deal. Would this map be better? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/a/a0/SFRJ1981EtnickaOpstine.jpg Or this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Yugoslavia_ethnic_map.jpg ? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, but could you please indicate the sources of the two maps, particularly the first one? That is to say, who was it that published the maps? -- Director  ( talk )  03:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm as a source
User:Zoupan appears to believe that Malcolm is not a reliable source. I ask that he/she provide some evidence that Malcolm is not a reliable source. The addition of "better source" tags, with no edit summary or discussion on this talk page is unacceptable wikibehaviour. Please discuss here, and stop edit warring without even an edit summary to explain what your purported issue with Malcolm is. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Malcolm is indeed very biased whenever the subject is Serbia. I have seen you being quite reasonable, I don't understand why you defend that much an author who clearly has a deep hateriot towards Serbs and has been acclaimed by Albanian and Bosnian circles obviously because of that. Using Malcolm clearly makes the text loose credibility, there are certainly much better authors on the subjects who are not criticized so much and who are more credible.
 * I can understand why Malcolm is defended by users like bobrainer whose open mission here is to fight against Serbian POV and desmistify Serb myths (his own words), and obviously he defends him because Malcolm makes exceptional claims :) which no other scholar makes. But if we want to have this and other articles credible and neutral, we should definitely avoid partisan authors that make exceptional claims. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, fine. But do you have any non-Serb academic reviews of his book that say he is biased? Because that is the basis on which we might decide not to use it, not your opinion, or Zoupan's. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But don't we have Tomasevic saying that same thing just in a less partisan manner? FkpCascais (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We might do, but IMO this is just an indirect way of trying to sideline Malcolm as a source across the board. If editors want to say he's not reliable, fine, but they should either put up the negative academic reviews or back off. I personally don't get Malcolm's supposed bias. Next thing you'll be telling me Hoare is biased. Then Ramet, then all the other academics who criticise the actions of DM and his Chetniks in WWII. It's a slippery slope, and I 'm not having it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Noel Malcolm is a recognised respected authority, there is no such thing as a 100% neutral journalist or historian however there is nothing to suggest that Noel Malcolm isn't a reliable source. One could argue that his opinions are biased but the facts in his books are still facts, it isn't like he has invented up history. IJA (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Banovina of Serbia
Although not directly linked to the issue of our article here, it does end up being related. I am talking about the proposed Banovina of Serbia which was to be basicall a response to the creation of the Banovina of Croatia. Would anyone oppose me adding a few words about it, obviously sourced, and possibly the map would also be very usefull for our article here. FkpCascais (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Greater or Great Serbia?
The title should be 'Great Serbia' as the original name in Serbian is 'Velika Srbija'. 'Velika' means large, big or great, this is the positive form of the adjective. 'Veća' means larger or greater, this is the comparative form. 46.163.53.108 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, like Great Britain. Great Serbia would be the exact translation and what you said is absolutely correct, but the problem is that WP:COMMONNAME for Velika Srbija in English is Greater Serbia rather then Great Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If anybody has any explanation about the first appearance of the English term "Greater Serbia" (time and place) I would really appreciate it.

31.223.138.148 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid what it is called in Serbian isn't how we decide the article title. We go for what the common name is in English. A basic Google Books test shows over 35,000 hits for "Greater Serbia" and only a tenth of that for "Great Serbia". Fairly obviously "Greater Serbia" is the common name in English. Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Greater Serbia
I have created this thread for any issues to be raised regarding the term "Greater Serbia", as the IP editor in question may not know how to do this. I suggest they use this thread to explain whatever their concerns are, but please do not use CAPS (which is considered equivalent to shouting. Please explain your concerns briefly. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Peacemaker, I really missed this thread. You are duplicating it however. It was started here already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greater_Serbia#Greater_or_Great_Serbia.3F

I'm now avoiding CAPS, hoping I'm not going to hurt anybody with them. Regards31.223.138.148 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented in the above thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504142243/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514052338/http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-February-2011/time-to-reconsider-partition-for-bosnia.html to http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-February-2011/time-to-reconsider-partition-for-bosnia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504142243/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/IV.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greater Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107164026/http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/batakovic/batakovic-nacertanije_eng.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/batakovic/batakovic-nacertanije_eng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302171836/http://www.montenegro.org/pictures/news1919.gif to http://www.montenegro.org/pictures/news1919.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107164026/http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/batakovic/batakovic-nacertanije_eng.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/batakovic/batakovic-nacertanije_eng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304012259/http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/iii/memorandum.pdf to http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/iii/memorandum.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo
Arguing that the claim on Kosovo amounts to "Greater Serbia" is a joke to say the least. Much of the world recognises Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo without also claiming Montenegro and Bosnia to be part of Serbia. I may not be the best when it comes to stringing the sentences together but somehow this needs to be reflected in some manner. Otherwise we can add Preševo Valley to the list. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Add the Preshevo valley if you wish to do so. On Kosovo, the practice used on Wikipedia articles is the addition of the Kosovo note, not your wording of the sentence. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, and Belgrade and Novi Sad. You've having a joke. This is a serious preject. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical perspective
The Historical perspective section is a large one but mostly unsourced for years. It can not stay for longer in that situation. There are several things can be done: add sources for the actual content, replace the unsourced content with new sourced content, remove the unsourced content and merge the rest into the History section. I am pinging some editors who have edited the article or have edited similar topics. ,, , , . Thoughts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Serbian media and official school textbooks barely mention Greater Serbia or anything like that. I first heard about this only when I came to Bosnian and Croatian sources as well as Kosovo sources in the last few years. Only the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) publicly advocated this, but SRS was a brief ruling party and was generally portrayed in the media as circus, not as a relevant party. In my opinion, too much attention is paid to this narrative and ideology (mostly as a result of heightened propaganda during the wars), and that many of the terrible moves of politicians are misclassified in the context of the ultimate goal of Greater Serbia.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even so, I find the section as a very usefull introduction that provides few of the main elements of Serbian history that explain the roots and reasons behalve of the moves some political movements later followed. Without it, it is so usefull for those who want to make the entire idea as if it came from the sky sudently one day. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't say this too often, but i agree with @FkpCascais on it being keep. It just needs refs. Citation tags should be added. @WEBDuB, true, the modern post Milosevic era is different, but this concept was present among some high level people during the breakup of Yugoslavia and at certain periods of time in the past 200 years that shaped geopolitics and the fates of many in the region. Understanding how the concept was conceived and evolved through a historical perspective is important.Resnjari (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I would keep the key info. but trim it down a bit + adding more references. 2) I agree with you that too much credit is given to this idea. It is also used in everyday communication on the web in order to label people, which is just another form of bias and hate speech. For example, Načertanije was never an official document and it was only known to PM Garašanin and very small number of associates. But than you have a lot of folks thinking that some council of Greater Serbian Sith Lords are sitting in their palace in Belgrade, plotting their next move. :)  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  12:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Resnjari. I actually created the section about a decade ago and meantime it was modified, parts were added, parts were removed, same with sources. The problem with sources is that it is hard to find objective sources dealing with this issue which are not partisan and trying to make a point. Usually the term is used in negative context to demonise Serbs. My objective was to introduce the subject by explaining its roots and causes without making judgments. There are clearly several controversial events in Serbian history which influenced the creation of this problem. Serbs had a statehood tradition from the early medieval times and had a strong rejection of acceptance of foreign rule. Initially they were characterized by having its territory divided in numerous smaller entities distributed ammong the nobles. This was beneficial because whenever some foreign power would subjugate some entity, others would mantain its freedom and continue the Serbian tradition. However, this tradition although a great survival mode, it unabled Serbs of growing and often made brothers fight eachother. The Nemanjic dinasty changed this and focused in centralization of power. Several causes helped them, from the plague that devastated most of central and western Europe sparing the Balkans and making them a safe heaven, to trade and minning development that provided Serbian nobility with wealth and the army with quality equipment, they provided the Nemanjic conditions to form a strong state. The collapse of Serbian empire and the Ottoman invasion which lasted between 3 to 5 centuries depending on the region didn´t menaged to erase the desire ammong most of the Serbs of restoring their statehood. During the liberation from Ottomans, moves such as the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Sandzak clearly indicated the opposition that some centers of power had towards the expansion of Serbia. After victories at Balkan wars and First World War it became impossible to deny Serbs the right of territorial expansion and it is easy to imagine the nightmare that the idea of having a strong Slavic and Orthodox Serbian country laying on Italy´s back existed in Vatican. Territories were declaring union with Serbia, Serbian troops marched trough Zagreb and were welcomed in Slovenia, but Serbs archived it with 6 years of harsh war and tremendous human losses. It was one of those moments a nation could define itself but, instead, Yugoslavia was created. Proper Serbian borders were not defined, and an illusion was created suggesting that there was no need for that, since it was Serbian king and its army controlling the land, Belgrade the capital, and Serbs were finally united again in a single country with a slight detail that Croats and Slovenes were included as brothers. However, soon became clear that Slovenes, and specially Croats, didn´t shared the view of the centralized country most Serbs wanted, and that they counted with more allies ammong the other non-Serb nationalities making alltogether enough weight to make this new country toenter in a deep crysis. When Serbs slowly become aware this country was quite different from the initial idea that was a slightly more then just united Serbia, Yugoslavism became imposed. Second World War confirmed the failure of this new concept, Yugoslavism as simple replacement of Serbianism had serious opponents ammong other nationalities. The result of the Second World War was based in the abolishment of the monarchy and the establishment of a communist regime which internally made a series of controversial changes which resulted in the anulation of all Serbian territorial gains that resulted from the Balkans wars and WWI victories. Communist Yugoslavia confirmed a Serbia without access to sea and no control of any lands western of Drina river. While Greece and Bulgaria saw its parts of Macedonia incorporated and assimilated, Serbia saw its part removed and created into a equally leveled unit as Serbia was. Despite having proclaimed union with Serbia in 1918, Vojvodina saw its westernmost part, Baranja, atributed to Croatia, and was made an autonomous province just as Kosovo, a situation only verified in Serbia, wereas all other republics were kept spared of creation of any such autonomous entities. Despite all this, despite the forceable relocation of about 30 biggest factories from Serbia to Bosnia and Croatia at early 1950s, despite the persecution of monarchists and nationalization and confiscation of the properties of Serbian industrialists and enterprenours (remember that Serbia until 1945 lived in a capitalist regime) as result, we again have Serbs as majoritarilly stounch supporters of Yugoslavia all way till its disspolution. Tito neutralism and independence from Moscow was supported and reason of pride for Serbs. When time for transition arrived, polls indicated strong support of entrance into EU, however, Serbs were majoritarilly adherent of mantaining the policy of neutrality and non-alligment and opposed of entering NATO, a factor that may influenced certain lobbies in the west to support the breaking-up of Yugoslavia. With the rise of nationalism, the notion that Serbs were the major supporters of both Yugoslavia´s created a feeling of bitterness ammong Serbs which considered that they sacrificed their own statehood for a Yugoslavia "for all" and this notion will be ciclically exloited politically in many ways. The fact is that most nations in this region of Europe do have expansionistic movements, many feel should be territorially bigger than what they are, and that is the reason why irredentism has political presence in Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Greece... In my view, as an encyclopedia, we should not politicize the articles, or judge, but rather give historical perspectives and explain the causes and reasons for the phenomenom. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief Fkp, TLDR. This is not a forum for a Serbian-sympathetic polemic on the subject. Greater Serbia was a strong current during various stages of Serbian and Yugoslav history and it needs to be properly examined in a neutral way on Wikipedia. Pointing out that it existed isn't some form of anti-Serbianism, it is just a statement of the facts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All I mean Peacemaker67 is that in an encyclopedic articles, when the issue are irredentist articles, I would expect readers to be much more interested in knowing the reasons and causes that led to their existance, then to be just a accusational list of negative results that came out from them. I mean exactly the same for any other irredentist article as well, not only this one. Why it exists wherever it exists, what were its causes, and what are the arguments that make them ciclically reapear and have political support. The idea is not to make a sympathetic text, but rather expose the reasons and arguments irredentist ideologies exploit to gain support. FkpCascais (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Bad source
Anzulovic is unreliable source, it is a book written by a person who was not historian with an agenda. I think the source needs to be removed. 91.148.97.71 (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for that assertion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I already stated it, Anzulovic is not historian, nor is he any sort of expert maybe for comparative literature. 91.148.97.71 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, not evidence that he is unreliable. Read WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And what evidence to you have that he is "reliable"? Also him not being historian is a fact not an opinion. 91.148.97.71 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * a) there is nothing in RS that says he has to be a historian, b) he was a US academic who had a doctorate in comparative literature, and taught the science of literature, cultural history, and literary theory at an American university, he has been described as a cultural anthropologist, and c) the book was published by a reputable US university press. It ticks all the boxes as reliable. But, if you don't believe me, take it to WP:RSN and see what they say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * a) it does not, but his already nonexistent credibility is further diminished because he is not a historian, not to mention this is his only "historic" book, b) he was an expert in comparative literature, but I see he did not publish much in that area either, describing him as "anthropologist" does not make him one just like calling him "historian" does not mean he is one and c) is that some sort of appeal to authority? The book might have been published by "reputable US university press" but that does not make book reputable, just like the amateur contents of the book do not make it reputable or historic. 91.148.97.71 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are wasting your time here. The book was positively reviewed in the Christian Science Monitor and by scholars familiar with the area, including Ivo Banac. All this is just your opinion, and opinions are like the proverbial, everyone has one. Either take it to RSN or drop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are wasting your time here. It is a book written by a person who was not historian, who's clear bias can be read in the book, a person who contributed several articles to emigree ustashe magazine Hrvatska revija, which was founded by ustashe in South America. Is mentioning Ivo Banac another appeal to authority or something? It says more about Banac, and I don't mean anything good. And who is Faye Bowers and why does her review of Anzulovic book has any relevance? And that's all just your opinion, I have facts on my side. 91.148.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bit confused by the Pan-Serbianism section where it states “ The concept of Pan-Serbism espoused by these three was not an imperialist one, based upon the notion of Serbian conquest, but a rationalist one.” does that mean that in their eyes it wasn’t conquest because they saw all Southern Slavs as Serbs? If so it should he worded better. I also agree with Peacemaker. The author appears credible and RS. OyMosby (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The author is clearly biased and comes from a Croatian (possibly nationalist) POV.

And of course, there's nothing that says objectivity more than repeatedly referring to Kosovo as "Kosova" in your lecture. 3 It doesn't help either when you thank authors like Philip J. Cohen and others noted for their own biases in your foreword for helping you and make blanket statements about Serbs' "genocidal activity" while failing to explore the actual causes of the war in Yugoslavia.
 * Aleksa Djilas, son of Partisan Milovan Djilas and former fellow at Harvard, a moderate historian who refers to himself as a Yugoslav, lists Anzulović as a Croatian nationalist.1
 * Nicholas Miller is highly critical of the book, noting that "Anzulovic often loses sight of his thesis", his "choice of evidence is on occasion careless" and that he "stretche[s] his evidence".2

Another issue which Miller alludes to is that the author assigns responsibility to Serbs for genocide in Kosovo in addition to Bosnia (hence making the title of his book more applicable) when no serious scholar now actually considers it as such and a U.N. court ruling noted atrocities but disputed the events of February 1998-June 1999 as genocide.

But this random professor with no PhD in history or expertise in the Balkan history is "reliable" and an expert on Serbian history because PhD and University Press. --Griboski (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am sick to death of this "  says mean things about Serbs, so he must be unreliable" stuff. It is never-ending, is highly tendentious and disruptive to the operation of en WP, and is almost always done by editors trying to game the system to remove sources they don't like. It has happened with Noel Malcolm, Ramet, Cohen and now with Anzulovic, among many others. It has even happened with Tomasevich. It is pure POV-warrior behaviour. All academic work is contestable, you will almost always find someone criticising any given academic's work. It is the academic consensus that matters, and when you take out the obviously biased critics, that consensus is clearly divided, not all negative. At worst, Anzulovic should be attributed inline for anything controversial. Any further attempt to remove him from this article without getting a consensus on it at RSN will result in an ANI report for disruptive editing, or an instant block on an IP. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And maybe people are tired of your Croatophilism and your push of really questionable authors who wrote books with clear political agenda? 91.148.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anzulovic has been widely cited and has received favorable reviews[ same google scholar results for different country-specific searches and spelling). The sum of these reviews over the years forms the academic consensus about his work. Frankly, the ease with which some editors put forward comments that supposedly discredit an author is unheard of in any academic environment. --[[User:Maleschreiber|Maleschreiber]] (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Anzulovic in Serbia is not part of academic criticism, but pure politics(comes up in the first page of google scholar with sr-specific search on, : . I don't think that anyone will ever find consensus at RSN with such sources of "criticism".--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Jovan Byford writes in Sabrina Ramet's Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two (p.125): "Claims that Serbian collaborators were directly involved in the execution of Jews was made by a number of Croatian writers and publicists in a series of propagandist pieces of quasi-historical writing. Among them are Vukovic, Bojovic, Štefan, Cohen.." (in Staro sajmište: mesto sećanja, zaborava i sporenja, he adds that their works they try to present the Serbs as a genuine "genocidal people"). He does not cite Anzulovic here, but it is not farfetched to say he is from the same clique of authors. I would not expect a random Serbian professor to educate as an expert on Croatian nationalism and vice-versa. These types of authors are controversial and they will remain controversial even if that bothers some people.


 * Let me clarify though, unlike the IP, I'm not suggesting that this source or those like it should be removed entirely. That's ridiculous. He is still a scholar and his book is published in a University press. I'm also against the arbitrary removal of sources. I'm only saying that sources like this should be used carefully, particular statements attributed and preferably better sources should be used if available.


 * A history/sociology book from an American University Press will be cited by other scholars in similar fields. Not sure how this is a particularly notable achievement. Anyway, the ease with which some editors give unwavering credence to some sources while ignoring problematic information and negative reviews of their work because it suits their own views, is also unheard of in any academic environment. --Griboski (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If negative reviews come from a specific source that is not considered reliable, then that raises concerns about the nature of the reviews. The Balkanica review would never be accepted in any other journal. He has been cited close to a 800 times in total - half of those citations are linked to "Heavenly Serbia".--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Griboski, saying "it is not farfetched to say he is from the same clique of authors" is complete OR, it is just your opinion, and your opinion has as much sway here as anyone else's, ie none. Bring scholarly reviews of Anzulovic, like Maleschreiber has done, or drop it. This sort of argumentation on talk pages, particularly when it is initiated by a clearly POV IP then piled on by you, is just disruptive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I noted Djilas' assessment and linked to Miller's critical review above. There is also this review from a Canadian paper. 3 Look, there are positive and negative reviews, it's not like this would get deprecated at RSN. This source however should not be regarded on equal footing to that of scholars like Ramet and Tomasevich. That's all I have to say about it. --Griboski (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peacemaker67, we cannot remove every author or historian from the Wikipedia because they said something "wrong" or different about Serbs or Serbia. We know where is the place for determine such things. Mikola22 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Way to straw man and obfuscate the issue. Never did I say that a source is problematic or should be removed merely because they write something that's critical or negative about Serbs or Serbia. --Griboski (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)