Talk:Serbianisation

De-Serbianisation
Why is De-Serbianisation for Croatia empty? It says Croatia but under it, it is empty and goes straight to the next sub topic. Can we lock this thread becasue the vandals are getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.100.106 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly - it is unsourced, and it should, and will go away. But I don't think the thread should be locked, because that way contributors (like the one to whose post I am replying) can still comment on the article. --biblbroks (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops again, I misread the title section - thought it was for the section Serbianisation in Croatia. Anyway, statements are unsourced and the following sections don't further describe the subject - Serbianisation in Croatia. That's why I removed it wholly. --biblbroks (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbian ortodox church got jursidiction over ortodox vlachs and they became Serbs in Croatia. That is historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.233.101 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
low google hit results - not counting wiki mirrors & irrelevant mentions. Also, sources are needed. I'll put a disputable tag for now... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic issue
The last part (southern dialects forbiden) is in some way true but does not need to be placed on this page. It is evident to anyone that the non-existence of a Macedonian republic during the interwar period, as say for the Bosniaks/Muslims (with Bosnia), will have meant that the local people will have been something else (in this case, Serbs). However, the relationship between any two South Slavic nations is down to extention and not distance (ie.Venetians to Croats/Slovenes are nations by distance; Croats to Slovenes, extention), based on this cultural/linguistic/ethnic prolonged proximity. It means that a Macedonian forced into becoming Serbian is not a complete transformation; but to become Greek or Albanian is total surrended of identity. For this reason, it is not good to accuse earlier Serbian authorities of Serbianising other Slav groups. Evlekis 12:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

sources?
There are no sources given that use this term, so it seems to be a neologism. Can someone please find sources for this article? Thank you. // Laughing Man 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable individuals who voluntarily became Serbs
Would someone be so kind to explain what are doing Meša Selimović and Emir Kusturica on that list? Not quite sure how only religion can determine ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.9.82 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that Emir Kusturica is a Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) and that he auto-declares himself as a Serb. An example of Serbization process.Adrian (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources given

 * See references [1] and [2] for a collection of about 100 original sources, published in a number of countries that describe 'Serbian assimilation', 'Serbian oppression', 'Serbianization' (you can use authomatic search for these terms in the long documents) of the Bulgarian ethnicity in Macedonia. You are welcome. Lantonov 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will cite only one of those documents here, just to see what the word is about (please excuse me for the length of the document):

A petition(1) from the Bulgarian population in Vardar Macedonia to the League of Nations concerning the unbearable national and political oppression

December 1929

His Excellency Sir Eric Drummond, Chief Secretary of the League of Nations, Geneva.

According to Article 2 of the Treaty signed at Saint Germain on September 10th, 1919 between the main allied forces and the Kingdom of Ser­bia, Croatia and Slovenia, the protection of the minorities living in the Kingdom is guaranteed by the League of Nations. By signing this Treaty, the Kingdom undertook to give rights to all minorities living within the boundaries of the country after January 1st, 1913.

According to all this, these rights and this protection apply to the Bulgarian population in Yugoslavia annexed to the latter after the above-mentioned date. On the basis of this Treaty, the population is appealing to the League of Nations, asking for the implementation of the Treaty for the Protec­tion of Minorities - in this case, the Bulgarian minority in Yugoslavia, where it is a compact mass of the population living in Macedonia.

Ten years have elapsed since the Treaty was signed. In spite of this, the Treaty of Saint Germain, protecting the minorities, remains a dead letter. What is more: the Bulgarian minorities in Yugoslavia are not only deprived of the rights stipulated by this treaty, but they are subjected to systematic denationalization and forcible assimilation; they are deprived of political rights and are being turned into economic slaves and are doomed to poverty.

Contrary to the existing treaties, the Yugoslav government has destroyed all our cultural institutions — national, educational and political by closing 641 Bulgarian schools with 37,000 students; 1,013 Bulgarian teachers have been driven out, 761 Bulgarian churches have been confiscated and turned into Ser­bian, and six bishops were driven out, 833 priests were also driven out and all the Bulgarian libraries and library clubs in which we studied our mother Bulgarian tongue have been destroyed, Bulgarian newspapers and magazines have been banned in Macedonia. In short, the Yugoslav government has destroyed everything in Macedonia that could be used for the national, cultural and social development of the Macedonian Bulgarians.

In pursuing its policy of exterminating the Bulgarian spirit in Macedonia, the Yugoslav government has applied measures of a kind considered everywhere as a complete negation of contemporary civilization and elemen­tary conceptions of freedom.

a) Contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty of Saint Germain, we have been for­bidden to use our mother tongue, Bulgarian, in the streets, in our private relations, in trade, at meetings, etc., let alone using the Bulgarian language in publications and in the press. Bulgarian is altogether forbidden in government, town, etc., offices.

b) Our names have been forcefully changed by adding Serbian endings to them. Giving national names to our children is forbidden, and we are forced to give them names according to a list drawn up by the Serbian church authorities specially for Macedonia.

c) Reading Bulgarian books and Bulgarian newspapers is forbidden under the threat of the most severe punishment, and we never have an opportunity to read a line in our mother tongue. Four young people were convicted in Kavadartsi, because a Bulgarian book was found on them.

d) The singing of Bulgarian songs is considered an offence. In Tetovo many citizens, with their priest at the head, were convicted because they had sung Bulgarian songs at a celebration.

e) The Yugoslav authorities have forbidden us to celebrate our national and customary holidays, our namedays and the holidays of the different craftsmen, and have imposed the Serbian 'Slava' upon us instead.

f) In order to facilitate assimilation, the authorities force young women in Macedonia to marry Serbian gendarmes, and all protests against this coercion are of no avail. All state and town posts are barred to the Macedonian in­telligentsia. Their applications are ignored, while they themselves are being expelled from the kingdom as was the case with Dr Piperkova from Skopje, Dr Naoumov from Ohrid and Dr Tsipoushev from Veles, or they are being in­terned, as is the case with engineer Karadjov and Dr Taoushanov from Shtip, or are being killed, as was recently the case with Blagoi Monev from Shtip, Rampo Popov from Prilep, etc. - not to speak of the numerous murders which occurred earlier.

The Bulgarian population in Macedonia has deep faith in the great mis­sion of the League of Nations and would like to believe that the latter is keeping watch on the strict observation of the international treaties. That is why, cogni­zant of the rights guaranteed to it as a minority under the Treaty of Saint Ger­main, and notwithstanding its great sufferings owing to the forceful assimilation practiced by the Yugoslav government, the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, organized in its national organizations, decided to send us to Geneva in the capacity of its lawful representatives, in order to submit this peti­tion to the League of Nations and to ask for its protection, as a national minori­ty in Yugoslavia - something of which we have hitherto been deprived due to the well-known attitude of the Yugoslav government..

We, the undersigned Yugoslav citizens, born and living in Macedonia have held different public and political posts and have taken part in the political life of our country, in the capacity of representatives of the Bulgarian national minority in Yugoslavia, accepted the delicate and patriotic mission, to submit this petition to the League of Nations, and we are confident that, through this act, we are fulfilling a duty towards our own people and civilized humanity because we believe that we are helping, in a peaceful way, to obviate the threat to peace.

Stating all this, we take the liberty of drawing the attention of the League of Nations to the dangers threatening the very existence of the Bulgarian pop­ulation in Yugoslavia.

At the same time, we declare that all these and other facts stated in the petitions, submitted either by the emigrant organization of the Macedonians, or by other organizations like the Balkan Committee in London, the French League for Human Rights or the American League, are entirely in accordance with the facts and with the wishes of the Bulgarian population in Yugoslavia.

In order to remove the difficult and unbearable situation which is creating conditions for undesirable events, we are confident that the following measures are necessary and expedient:

1. That the nationality of the Macedonian population be acknowledged and that the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities be strictly observed under the control of the League of Nations.

2. That our brother emigrants be allowed to return to Macedonia.

3. That there be an amnesty for all political prisoners, convicted by the Serbian courts solely because they wanted the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities.

4. That Bulgarian schools and churches built with so much sacrifice on the part of the population before the Serbian rule in Macedonia be opened-anew.

5. In order to monitor the fulfillment by the Yugoslav government of its treaty obligations that a special commission, appointed by the League of Nations, be sent to Macedonia to observe the implementation of this Treaty.

The Macedonian population, whose representatives we have the honour to be, was happy at the news of your coming to the capital of Yugoslavia. This is a proof of the faith which this population has in the League of Nations and in its great mission to establish an era of complete tolerance in the relations among the nations, a tolerance necessary for peace. We are confident that this faith of our brothers will be justified by Your Excellency's attention to this peti­tion.

On behalf of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia under Serbian domination:

Dimiter Shalev Signed: Dimiter Iliev

Veritas, Macedonia Under Oppression 1919-1929, Sofia, 1931, pp. CXCI-CXCV; the original is in Bulgarian.

1 The petition was submitted by the deputy-mayor of Skopje Dimiter Shalev and the judge Dimiter Iliev. They were joined by Grigor Atanasov, lawyer from Kavadartsi, former Deputy of the Skupshtina in Belgrade, who later went to Geneva, after clashes with the Serbian authorities

Map
First, Panonian I must remind you of your words about culture and monasteries. What you mean these leveled churches did not belong to the culture of the region? And they forcible disappearing is a part of a forcible cultural changing namely Serbianisation. Please show me just one Orthodox church in Vojvodina which was razed by COMMUNISTS. --Bendeguz 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIC, the Serbian Orthodox Church is the religious organization that suffered the most during the existence of Communist Yugoslavia (I can't claim for Vojvodina precisely, since I do not know much 'bout it). However, I must agree with PANONIAN - it doesn't have much to do with cultural assimilation at all. You're forgetting that this article deals with cultural assimilation of non-Serbs into Serbs. For example, the SOC monastery of Krupa was ransacked by Croatian paramilitaries during Operation Storm in 1995, however that is no way "Croatization". --PaxEquilibrium 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, PaxEquilibrium explained this and I do not think there is something else that could be said. Before posting that map here, Bendeguz, you have to prove that aim of the communists was Serbianization and not secularization. Communists in general were enemies of the religion, hence it is the reason why they razed those churches, not to make area more Serbian, but to make it more atheist. Article Religion in Vojvodina is the good place where such map could be posted. PANONIAN   (talk)  00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear example of POV editing.Lord feanor 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why ? Rjecina 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanians in serbia
there is no sources for serbianisation of romanians. just conclusion that they are serbianized because the smaller number of them (wich is in fact 34,576 not 4,157) and for that they cold be many other explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.172.182 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is about the serbinisation of Romanians(Vlachs) in central Serbia (Timocka Krajna/Valea Timocului) not in Vojvodina. Adrian (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about? Serbianisation or Albanisation???
It's very misleading to put the "Albanisation" section in to this article??? 'cause it takes away the focus from the main article...In my opinion the hole section of Deserbianisation should be removed 'cause it's in a huge controversy with the title of this article and if I don't receive any response till the end of this week the fore mentioned part will be removed because it can also be found on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanisation and that's a duplicity. User:yllbardh 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have just remove the paragraph. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Albanization is clearly under the De-Serbisation section. --Jebacz (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, its a WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE via WP:OR. For example how could there be a deserbianisation of a particular group of people and so on if they were not Serbianised in the first place? The "de" suffix in the word connotes a removal or reversal and in this instance coupled with the word of the process "serbianisation" would infer a reversal and undoing of this transformative process. Unlike with this article, on the Albanianisation page there is a section called De-albanianisation and that deals with actual examples of when there was Albanianisation and then it was reversed (as cited in sources). Other issues with the De-Serbianisation section is that all the sources cited to that part in no way refer, cite or discuss (de)serbianisation, so its original research on the part of editors who placed it here. The section should go as a article already exists on Albanianisation and has that exact same content and sources.Resnjari (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Romanian Vlachs name
I have reverted this edit because when talking about some process of assimilation (Serbiansation in this case) Vlachs can be a wide "area" as ethnic group. Ex: Vlachs can be, Aromanians(Tsincari/Cincari), Vlachs(Rumanians) of Serbia, Istro-Romanians, Daco-Romanians (Romanians or Moldavians), Morlachs, Megleno-Romanians. Saying "Romanian Vlachs" is more correct for this article having in mind that this ethnic group considered them-self Romanians without any doubt until approximately 1900 year, maybe until 1920 but that is not for sure. This is surely influenced by this process of Serbiansation as can be seen on this historical censuses and this is about what this article talks about. Therefore it is more appropriate and correct to say Romanian Vlachs because until ~1900 those people declared themselves as Romanians. Also until the revision of the article this term was also used what I believe it is from this reference. Adrian (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is wrong that you yourself apply this designation to Vlachs, the Vlachs of Serbia refers to simply those who identify as "Vlachs", living in Serbia, thus, applying "Romanian" results in misunderstanding, because of this, i suggest you change the header to "Romanians and Vlachs", as they are two groups, not one, in the censuses.--Zoupan (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Multiple problems
This will be just for starters: 1) The article is everything but NPOV. It says one side of the story, mostly Bulgarian. 2) Some paragraphs are mostly empty or orphan like, for example the two senteces on Middle ages. 3) There is no real discussion going on, just two or three motivated (in what way?) editors making sure that this narrative sticks. When you are saying something on the scale that there is "Serbianisation" happening in the 21st century N. Macedonia, you should better have a discussion about it. 4) Part about "Serbianisation" of Serbo-Croatian language is one of the most ludicrous thigs which I have ever read. It makes no logical sense, zero. Acctualy, it sounds even comedic. 5) There is no good spirit about editing this page in place. Any edit made my me or other editors from Serbia (I am going through the history of the page) is treated as an attack on thruth, that is someone's version of it. That is, to my mind, not what this projects is about. cheers Mm.srb (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Either follow wikipedia rules to resolve disputes with your fellow wikipedia editors or swim away. Edit warring and writing this kind of calimero comments are not constructive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Mm.srb (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mm.srb, it is simple. If you have reliable sources, add content based on them. But do not remove sourced content. If you see issues with the reliability of any of the sources present on the article, express your concerns here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture below was deleted several times without good explaination. This is a historical picture closely related to the topic. No need to delete it. The VMRO-NP party launched in 2015 a campaign for preserving the Macedonian national identity from Serbian cultural assimilation supported by the ruling then VMRO-DPMNE. On the assertion that the article presents the information one-sidedly and from a Bulgarian point of view, I did not see any Bulgarian source or reference there. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I know the Bulgarian point of view and if it will be presented, the article will change significantly. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with here. The article is based on reliable sources. All of them either refer to Serbianisation, Serbisation, Serbianising and so on.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT such as  "It says one side of the story, mostly Bulgarian" is not a reason and so on. You have not shown in your comments if there are issues with sources, only that you have a personal dislike of the content. I agree with  regarding the picture and its inclusion in the relevant subsection.Resnjari (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not remove properly sourced content. That is good work in my book. A paragraph which I removed and think that needs removing sounds silly. I am sorry that you are unable to see it. Bulgarian POV is solidly presented but not totaly, which is not the point. You are restoring one party's POLITICAL CAMPAIGN to represent a proccess of Serbianisation. Take a closer look at the image. That whole part is far-fetched and misleading, because it is about one party pointing fingers at another. You should put the same paragraph on Bulgarisation, because the accused party called the leader of the other party to be Bulgarian. It is totaly off the tracks. As I previously stated, there is no open-mindedness to this article and discussion, several editors are patrolling the page and operating in a joint effort. Nothing new under the Sun. Sorry for my calimero comments, it is another point of view. I have nothing against this page, just some parts of the content, mostly taken out of context, like the 21st century part. Mm.srb (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If your suggesting that the caption of the picture should have different wording or clarification, that's fine, everyone can discuss that. From my point of view i think the picture is notable because the Macedonian government launched a campaign and made Serbianisation a issue in the public domain for a duration of time when it was in government. Its not like some fringe group brought it up, but a recent government., I'm going to take a guess here, but are you referring to the 21st century subsection? I just want to make sure before making any further comment. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Either you do not understand or do not want to understand. The whole 21st century section is politically motivated and thus misleading. It is quite simple when you try to look at it neutrally - one political party in power used the concept of Serbianisation as a part of their campaing in order to gaing popularity with the crowd and harm the other political party, which is holding a pro-Serbian POLITICAL stance. That led to calling names (Bulgarian etc), which only proves that it is not motivated by factual events (there is no quote about any real Serbianisation taking place, only quotes by politicians making theories and claims). The whole section is far fetched and misleading. There is no word of acctual Serbianistion taking place. The whole idea posed in the paragaraph is a manipulation; there is only 35.000 Serbs in Macedonia to begin with. Secondly, this article speaks about "transitional Bulgarians" in Niš. A reader who has no knowledge about history of the region would come to think that some 150 years ago there was a plurality of Bulgarians living in Niš and other cities, which is simply not true. There was a certeain amount of Bulgarian population, but writing that Serbian language only west of Belgrade was free of Bulgarian influences is just mindblowing. Naturally, the main source for it is a Bulgarian author writing about Macedonian identity. The picture of the map of territories which Bulgaria was forced to give away because it was on the loosing side in the Great War is also misleaing, there are many Bulgarians living there to this day. The picture of anti-Bulgarian militia is also dubious, because the whole sense of the paragraph is that there was no Macedonian question to begin with, but that land was originally Bulgarian only to be later snatched away, which is far from the thruth. Those are just some of the examples of not having a NPOV. When I tried to add phrasing which would appear more neutral and correct, I was undone by Ktrimi with no real explanation. How about that? Mm.srb (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mm.srb, please, we talk about cultural, not forcible ethnic Serbianisation during 21th century, i.e. through media, Church, etc.Jingiby (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On the 21st century subsection, the Radio Free Europe article is an RS source. Maybe some more concise rewording might be needed as it was mainly part of politics in Macedonia then anything else. Serbianisation does appear to be a topic that reappears from time to time. There is a legacy of course, so its not surprising that some politicians over there would invoke it, even if one thinks its opportunistic on their part to do so these days without being substantive about it. On the Timok and Morava section, the source and sentences i added based on Drezov does mention Serbianisation and the source is RS.Resnjari (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudos on the lack of logical thinking. Everthing you wrote about is off the point and not giving any real answer, it is just a tiny diplomatic answer which did not treat any of the issues I am raising, but giving vast generalisations instead. One politician's statement or a political campaign is supposed to be an example of an acctual case of the 21st century Serbianisation taking place. That is off the charts. When I try to write that it is alleged, because after all, it is only a statement made my one politcian and also a stance of a single political party in power, 4 of you undo me. This is a nice example how Wikipedia becomes a propagandistic mess and a source of misinterpreted information based on one-sided sources ("Bulgarian influences all the way to Belgrade", "Niš having a big Bulgarian population", "Serbianisation of Serbian language" etc.) Most of the work done on the article is nationalistically driven, propagandistic and has no NPOV in mind. Naturally, when I try to raise these issues, one or two editors will run away to warn me that I am not using appropriate language (I belive in calling things what they realy are) and if I undo one of you mates who give no real reasons for your undos (like writing "not an improvement", that is so silly), you will make sure to warn me that I am edit warring, but as a matter of fact I am trying to make a compromise while you are patrolling the page and making sure that your narrative sticks. I am long enough on Wiki to know that that is a part of your modus operandi. No problem, all of this will be worked on in the near future. cheers :) Mm.srb (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ("Bulgarian influences all the way to Belgrade", "Niš having a big Bulgarian population"... etc.) Mm.srb, can you look right-below, please and calculate the years. Until the 19th century Belgrade was longer part of Bulgaria, then of Serbia. More, under Byzantine Empire between 1018 and 1185, it was part from a province called Bulgaria and its people continued to be called Bulgarians by the Byzantines, whatever that meant. That are more then 400 years permanent Bulgarian influence. Belgrade became for the first time part of Serbia in the late Middle ages. And check now, please how the Official Journal Serbian news described in 1841 the inhabitants of the Sanjak of Nis: Bulgarians, whatever that meant. Until the area was ceded to Serbia in 1878 it was populated by Bulgarian Millet. Jingiby (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. Mm.srb, I have vorgotten to comment your last main objection about (..."Serbianisation of Serbian language" etc.) I think this issue is related to the fact that during 19th century, the areas west of Belgrade were considered free of Bulgarian ethno-linguistic influence and as such, that motivated the Serb linguistic Vuk Karadžić to use the Hercegovina dialects for his standardisation of Serbian. Please, read the article Eastern South Slavic on the modern Bulgarian, Macedonian and Torlakian dialects. Until the 20th century these dialects were often described as forming the Bulgarian language as opposing to Serbo-Croatian. Ivo Banac maintains that during the Middle ages even Eastern Herzegovinian dialect was Eastern South Slavic, but between 12th and 16th century, Eastern Herzegovinian separated itself from the rest of the Eastern South Slavic dialects. That is late Eastern Douth Slavic, i.e. non-Serbian linguistic influence even in Herzegovina. Jingiby (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Drezov (RS source) refers to Serbianisation of the area, and the article is about Serbianisation.Resnjari (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Occupying a part of the territory, like many other khanats and hordes did in history, proves quite little. Holding a territory does not equal to direct influences. Belgrade is and was a city of strategic importance. The traces of Bulgarian culture from that time is practically non-existent. Most of the big infuences you like to think (Modern Age too) about and quote local sources are, again, practically non-existent in archeology and local traditions. 2) Byzantines called the people by the name of the theme, as you wrote, the same way Serbs were called Dalmatians and so on. That is no argument. 3) Even if we take for a fact that one language had sone influences from another, which is nothing new, what gives the space for the notion that the main motivation for the work of Vuk Karadzic came from that reason? I can see that you know little abot the matter and like to belive in the idea which you put up in the article with little regards to NPOV (it is quite imiginative). Vuk's main point of interest was to make a unifed language, while the main opponents were mostly educated and rich Serbs from Vojvodina who has different ideas about the Serbian language. I do understant that you like to think that there were some great big Bulgarian influences, but in real life, things are quite different. 3.1) The section about Serbianisation of Serbian language writes about Serbian "breaking away" from Serbo-Croatian, like that there was no Serbian before. That means nothing realy. When I tried to write about that and raise the issue, some editors will say "sources are okay", press Undo as much as they can and try to label me as edit warrior. That is an example of good faith in practice. :) 4) How a single JOURNAL desrcibes a part of the population means nothing. That is no real source, it is a local journal. I invite you to show me the number of Bulgarians from any time from 1804. to 1878. or even before, Niš region or Pirot even? You would be surprised. 5) You have selectively used sources and made a little biased narrative out of this article in many parts. This article is talking about "transitional Bulgarians", "Macedonian Bulgaria", "Serbian opression" and other nonsense which is clear only to several editors and not a broader population reading Wikipedia. Plus, those terms, like "Western outlands" whatever that is, has little or no mentions on other articles. Can you even begin to grasp how wrong and misleading that is on so many levels? 6) Some meditation will be needed, because patrolling the page like just proves no will to compromise or find a neutral language (as seen from undoing my edits by Krtmi991). Mm.srb (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Croats also Croatised their version of Serbo-Croatian. The thing is on the matter that since the 19th century until the breakup of Yugoslavia, the sociopolitical and academic elite of both peoples aimed to have a unified language. When the state collapsed in the Yugoslav wars, Croats began imposing dialectal elements that they deemed as "Croatian", Serbs did the same although to a lesser extent with elements deemed "Serbian" after the linguistic divorce. This is no secret (see: Language secessionism. Why is it in this article because that specific process about the event in that source talks about it in the context of Serbianisation. On Drezov its RS. Its not like the guy is some fringe type publishing nationalist dribble. Drezov has a long career in academia, working in reputable universities and having his stuff published in reputable academic publishing houses.Resnjari (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Alexandru Madgearu the region between Belgrade and Nis was taken by Serbia for the first time in 1291 or 1292 from Darman and Kudelin. Only then did the Serbization of this region previously peopled by Vlachs and Bulgarians begin.
 * 1) Conquering a territory does not automatically mean that there were no people of the conquer's ethnicity living in that area prior to the conquest. There are Slavic settlements (it is tricky to call the people of the are at that time by modern-day nationalities, even though DAI claims that only Serbs and Croats settled with their old names) much earlier than 13th century or so. You are yet again making a logical mistake. 2) The orphan sentece about Serbianisation of Serbian language still looks comical and it pretty much says nothing on the point, it is just an empty information. Of course that some changes in the grammar and so on will be made after the split of a joint languge, that is no secret and it is only logical. 2.1) The quoted Sentence is written poorly, with no real meaning and it looks enough that one sentence has a paragraph of its own. Removal of elements in the language which were not Serbian (whatever that is; which you in the great tradition of stand-up comedy titled the Serbianisation of Serbian language) was rarely taking place, next to none compared to the Croatian case. 3) Just because a man is in academia does not mean that he is wright on every issue. That is a logical mistake in which you present someone's title or biography as an argument for his work. He is an academic, but obviously taking a side and not just on history, but politics as well which can be seen on his book on Kosovo. 4) Even if that is true, and it is not, because arhceology says otherwise, you are talking about events which took place 730 years ago while saying "Only than did the Serbization" begin. o.O One more thing, Stefan Nemanja conquered Nis as of the late 12th century, so get your facts in order. 5) I can conclude from this discussion that you do not realy care about NPOV (only this little narrative) and you are arguing here just for the sake of arguments, which only means that all of this is solid waste of time, not in the spirit of Wikipedia and more appropriate for some internet forum. Mm.srb (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Madageru source you cite is interesting. . All p.33 states is that Serbization began in the late 1200s of the Romanians and Bulgarians when the area came under Serb rule. Drezov does not contradict this. He states on p.53 that that following the Serb national revival and attainment of statehood the Serbianisation process in the area between Belgrade and Nish (the Timok) was fully completed. In no way does he contradict Madageru. It might make for a good addition to give context about the start of the process in the region. Good find. Madageru also notes on p.126  about the Serbianisation of Albanian names during the medieval period under Tsar Dusan., what are your thoughts on Madageru?Resnjari (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you even know how big the area from Belgrade to Niš is? Get your geography in the first place before making joyful statements which come out sounding ridicilous. That "transitional area" faced all sorts of changes a number of times, which often happenes (worldwide) when there is a city of strategic importance near the thin border of several cultures. FYI: Slavs conquered the area around Niš on their way to Greece as of 550s and a bit later. The Bulgarian rulers definitely conquered the region in the middle of the 9th century. . Changes like that happened very often in the area and again, it is nothing new. Mm.srb (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Early Slavs were not all White Serbs. Bulgars conquered these tribes, which did not have a separate state as well the rest of the local Byzantine population and simultanously were assimilited by them, forming during the first halfof the 10th century Bulgarian ethnicity. And please, use neutral, not biased, i.e. Serbian sources.Jingiby (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. By the way this citation above is from totally outdated Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition. Jingiby (talk)
 * I accept the proposal of Resnjari about the addition of Madgearu's opinion about Serbianisation. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Madgearu (Маджару) not Madageru. Apcbg (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok! Jingiby (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mm.srb, look, i'm aware of my geography. i understand the transitional area (as called or defined in the 19th) had changes, however my position is this. The article is about serbianisation (and similar terms that denote the same process i.e serbisation, serbianising etc). From my standpoint i have only included RS sources that contain those types of words and refer to the topic directly and not something else or veered off the subject. I will add Madgearu, however there is content in the article that has veered from this topic and the result is these kinds of discussions.Resnjari (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, find an RS source to claim that Kosovo never existed after 1990. Not being a republic, its very inception was based on an autonomous ordinance, regardless how much or little power was devolved to its leadership at various times, and regardless also of whose loyalists were at the helm. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The threadbare platitude of Kosovo's autonomy being revoked in 1990 is frequently regurgitated ad nauseam by supposed "reliable sources" based exclusively on the notion that the unilateral reforms no longer facilitated the separatist architects and by extension, became no use to the divide et impera hawks in the west. I've got news. Kosovo was retrograded, but it was never cancelled. This source says "reduced" but not "revoked". --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV dispute and more
The whole idea of alleged transitional Bulgarians is a clear example of No original research. The term is or was coined by Bulgarian author(s). It reads as original research, and that is opposed to the core policy of Wiki. Editors are free to remove any original research. It reads as territorial pretension and biased historical revisionism, therefore - problematic in several ways. It is not supported in Serbian literature. It is not supported in the international works, thus - it is removed. No other entries about former Bulgarian popullation living in the parts was edited. "Westernd outlands" is another controversial title, which is well-known and written about on the very page. This is just the part of the issues, which do need to be fixed per NPOV. In the previous dicussion no real intention of fixing these problematic issues was shown. I can only guess why. My imputs and ideas were disregarded (read: an editor from Serbia has an interest in destroying this article; which if very far from the thruth). Now, we can discuss them and edit, bit by bit. I have added the appropriate tag untill all the issues are treated and a compromising solution is found. Do not remove the tag without a consensus. ty Mm.srb (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Serbisation of Serbs in Croatia
'''Pre-Turkish Serbian state and its institutions had no time to »serbicize« Vlachs, since it soon fell under the Turkish dominance; that process was not finished until the 19th century. Furthermore, the process of serbization, of Vlachs has been accomplished through the Serbian Orthodox Church in Dalmatia and the Military Frontiers (Vojna Krajina), i. e., in the territories of the Croatian Kingdom, together with Bosnia, where Vlachs found their final domicil. The Church had the most decisive role in the serbization process of Vlachs in the initial and middle phases; in the final phase, the most significant role was played by the newspaper Srbobran in the 80's and 90's of the 19th century. On the basis of the preceding analysis, the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation''' The Croatian historian talks about Serbization of Serbs in Croatia while the article talks about Serbization so I see no reason to erase this conclusion of the Croatian historian from the article.Mikola22 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is reason of someone for erasing conclusion of Croatian historian who speaks about Serbianisation  "Ustaše ideology has no place here and neither does pseudo-science. Just to quote this insane fascist entry - the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation."Fact that in Croatia  was a Serbianization writes in his book "Mirko Valentić ; Institute of Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, 1992." in which he give examples that talks about the facts which led to Serbianisation of Orthodox population in Croatia and Bosnia. No one has refute his book or conclusions. Therefore Croatian historian and his book are relevant evidence for Wikipedia and especially for this article because  Croatian historian talks about Serbianisation. If someone does not like what that has to do with that book and the source which is the basis and relevant evidence when it comes to Serbianization in Croatia i.e. in Austro-Hungarian Empire.Mikola22 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of the writings by ex Yugoslav authors and historians from the 90s is largely biased. Take the imaginary talk of Orthodox Croats and other ideas promoted by balkan Nazis on another article, thank you. If I disagree that does not mean that you should push your agenda further. That is why we have the talk page. This goes for IP editors and registered editors as well. cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is you don't know the realistic history. If in 70 or 80% of Croatia there is no mentione of Serbs and today in that area live Serbs what would be your conclusion? Therefore the same as his conclusion, which means that Croatian historian is telling irrefutable facts. Which agenda? I have said a hundred times, in Croatia for 70% of the territory there is no mention of any Serbians (or in three documents maybe five from hundreds that mentione Vlachs). There exist book with 400 pages that talks about Vlachs in Croatia, for the Serbs book would probably be with 10 pages if it were based on original historical documents. Do you now understand what this is all about? In Yugoslavia it couldn't been written but in  Croatia after the breakup of Yugoslavia it could be written and it is written. If  conclusions of that historians cannot be challenged I don't know what that says about the book itself? Well, I suppose that it says it's accurat and true which is relevant evidence for a Wikipedia article.Mikola22 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If there were no Serbs in Croatia, then why did you killed so many during the WW2? Your theories and attemps to deserbinaze people of Krajina are very nacionalistic and misleading and yet almost every event in history in last 100 years proves that there were Serbs that Croats tried to drive away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.145.50 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To the set of organized IPs.
A set of related WP:SPA is disrupting intentionally reliably sourced content in this article to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits somebody do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If some IP feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise such concerns. If the IP simply disagrees with my actions in this article, p;ease discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. The last example is recently deleted as unsourced passage, which is pretty sourced with Engin Deniz Tanır's dissertation, The Mid-nineteenth Century Ottoman Bulgaria from the Viewpoints of French Travellers (Ph.D. diss, METU, 2005), p. 71. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)