Talk:Serbs/Archive 5

Possible RE-vote on image
Seeing as the inclusion of Ivo Andric on this main page may be controversial and that having a >4 image presentation on the main page is a little showy (I concur it is). Maybe we can have a revote for a 4-pictured image, one including people who are definitely fully Serbs. Antidote 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please just RESPOND to this. Antidote 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the removal of the image of Ivo Andric; I would be happier with 4 images than 5, and if this is the most controversial, then it would be the one to remove. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of the six images currently there, Vlade Divac's should be removed. I like him, he's a great player etc but that's all he is. A basketball player who will be forgotten within ten years of his death. In his place I would put Mesa Selimović or (at a stretch) Emir Kusturica, whose name will (probably) live on. Vasko Popa, Aleksa Šantić, P.P. Njegoš or Branislav Nušić would also be good choices. Ivo Andrić should definitely not be removed, as he was both a Croat and a Serb, and saying so should not be controversial at all. Also, though this may sound shallow to the extreme Sveti Sava isn't the most aesthetically pleasing choice. --estavisti 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Estavisit - this is what I've been saying forever and been consistently ignored. Antidote 04:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Divac might be forgotten ten years after his death, but we live now, and he is famous now. I agree that he should be removed from an image ten years after his death, if he is forgotten by then. I think that it is important that the image includes some current people, and people from various professions. Kusturica is a good choice, though they both might be in.
 * Current image of Saint Sava isn't the best, but there are other that are better.
 * By the way, Antidote, why do you think that both German estimates should be in the article? We have three estimates for the higher number, and estimate for the lower number only covers a small time period and is unclear even at that. Nikola 12:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that the 700,000 number may be less accurate because the definition of "Serb" may be too inclusive. Perhaps there are 700,000 Yugoslavs in Germany (such as Bosniaks, Montenegrins, maybe Croats, maybe other ethnicities that are Serbian by culture) but I'd like to include the lower estimates JUST IN CASE that may be true. Antidote 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The wrong source was on there for the 125,000 numbers - I added the right one. Antidote 15:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, sources which say 700,000 speak about Serbs specifically - the one that says 125,000 only counts immigrants from SCG of all nations, and only in certain time period. Nikola 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Many I've seen only say Yugoslavs, and the 700,000 mark includes Kosovars (which I doubt were all Serbs). Plus the Kosovars would have more of a reason to immigrate. The 125,000 to 250,000 mark talks about immigrants PLUS the original inhabitants. All I'm saying is I really doubt that 700,000 full blown Serbian Serbs are in Germany. Antidote 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Change
I very happy that someone has finally taken my suggestions. She's a perfect selection, but I think perhaps her image could be made better - how about a portrait of her? Like the following: http://www.znanje.org/i/i20/00iv04/00iv0403/00iv0403.htm

Antidote 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

- How's this? Antidote 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Without judging the choices, I think it looks good. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, now is good. But first image was this:

You must now that current image of Nadežda Petrović is her autoportrait. Her picture on my image is image from 200 Serbian Dinars. --M. Pokrajac 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

US census
Re: this edit and especially the comment: the U.S. census systematically undercounts individual European ethnicities. Nothing specific to Serbs: Croats, Romanians, probably even Italians and Irish are undercounted. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing, I used phrase "Lower est." now.


 * Do you agree on removing lower estimate for Germany (see )? Nikola 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I revised "Lower est." to indicate that the estimate is official. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know on the Germany thing, and I don't have time right now to really look into it. But I won't object if others are in agreement. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do it. Nikola 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed parts
I have noticed that you have removed some parts from the article, like this one (without discussion). It seems that Nikola dont want to discuss about Serbs, but knows everything about Bosniaks:

War criminals
Nowdays, Serbs are also well known by wars and war criminals. There are more than hundred Serbs accused for war crimes by ICTY. Many of them are threated as heroes by Serbian leadership and ordinary people.

The best known Serb war criminals are Radislav Krstić, Ratko Mladić, Radovan Karadžić, Biljana Plavšić, Slobodan Milošević, Momčilo Krajišnik etc.

--Emir Arven 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having the truth on these people, and I deem them as war criminals as well. These facts, however, do have its place, and it is certainly not the article on Serbs -- there is Yugoslav wars, History of Bosnia and Herzegovina and like. If this is your personal vendetta against Nikola, then solve your problem that with him, do not vandalize the article. (Your recent revert war about Bosniaks/Bosnians is pretty silly btw). Duja 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your actions as malevolent in general, as your PoV is clearly to "spread the truth" about "Serbian war criminals everywhere" and "Serb nationalists everywhere". Your behavior would be more accepted if you don't treat every Serbian wikipedian as an enemy and every article on Serbia as the target for your agenda. Duja 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is regular section. If you want to delete it, you have to show good arguments. This article also writes about Serbs that left Croatia and Kosovo. So there must be the whole picture...Sto se tice Nikole, on ce vam samo donijeti belaj, da se izrazima na bosanskom... Emir Arven 15:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Da se i ja izrazim na bosanskom, i ti pravis mnogo belaja. Rat je zavrsen, ali izgleda nije za tebe. Duja 15:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ja samo popravljam ono sto Nikola kvari. S obzirom da se covjek fokusira na Bosnjake, htio sam da vidim sta pise o vlastitom narodu. Ostao sam sokiran kolicinom netacnih podataka,glorificiranjem, mitomanijom i skrivanjem druge stran medalje...Emir Arven 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Emire, ocigledno je da imas slucaj poodmakle srbofobije. Iskreno ti savetujem da u vezi toga posetis lekara. Nikola 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * this edit is a borderline vandalism. it is clearly an antiserbian POV. Half of the people listed are not convicted, and to call them war criminals before trial has no place in wikipedia, no matter of what one thinks of them. to brand 'Serbs are also well known by wars and war criminals' is malicious bandwagoning and also it is incorrect. well known is a weasel world which means nothing. you could say so about many nations, and such edits are quickly noted as malicious vandalism, and the users are banned as priority hate vandals. 'Many of them are threated as heroes by Serbian leadership' (sic) is strictly inaccurate. the edits a are clear example of a POV vandalism, possibly based on skewed perception of reality by some local hate-mongers that the user emir harven is using as a source of daily hate-inspiring reading. try putting a racist edit, and you will be quickly banned, and same will happen with all other hate-based edits. Suvarijeka 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

since i suspect that cognitive powers of emir harven are in desperate need of some elucidating, let me try to be as plain as possible. would you consider the following edit a valid enntry for an article on muslims: ''Nowdays, muslims are also well known by terror and terrorist attacks. There are thousands of muslim terrorists who are being hunted by world police all over the planet as mad dogs. Many of them hide in caves. Terrorists are treated as heroes by the leadership of muslim nations and ordinary muslims.

The best known muslim terrorists are Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Husein, Mohamed Atta, Alija Izetbegovic, Ibn Musa Al-Zarqawi, Yasser Arafat etc.'' ? Suvarijeka 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We do not use articles on ethnicities to focus on criminals of that ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Mileva Maric
Could we possible replace her with someone more qualified to "contributing to humanity" - I can't see how being a mediocre mathematician and the wife of someone famous makes you worthy of that list. Sorry. Antidote 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

She was not that well known even in her own country until feminists took on themselves her case and pointed out that she might have contributed significantly to Einstein theories - supposedly, she did divelop most of the general relativity, as Einstein was too lazy for the math technicalities. Weather this is true or not I do not know, however, the reason Mileva is listed here is that she was center of this controversy and if she indeed contributed to the physics revolution, whilst Einstein took all the credit, she would rightly be considered as a person contributing to humanity (and certainly not a mediocre). Einstein supposedly pledged to share his Nobel prize with Mileva because of her contributions. But he didnt. Of course, if this is all false, you would be right, but since feminists have put case for Mileva, she is seen as someone whose contributions to humanity are far greater than average - and it is seen as unjust that she did not get any recognition.

Rudjer Boscovich
I think we should erase Rudjer Boscovich; there is sufficient amount of controversy on talk page of that article, and we shouldn't add oil on fire. The bottom line is, Rudjer is only technically a Serb, by means of his Serb father (which is also disputed), but nothing (or very little) in his life suggests that he cared much about such things; assigning Serb ethnicity to him looks like retrofitting to me. Duja 11:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; Rudjer is the conceiver of the modern Serbian Astronomy :))) (not just technicly; go to the Astronomical Society, they consider him their father :))) HolyRomanEmperor 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

An anon's comments, moved from the article source
Please check more reliable historical maps! The SERB LANDS "De Administrando" map is MOSTLY according to truth, it´s a FAKE! The croation version of the 10th century: http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/tomislav.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.208.67 (talk • contribs)


 * Check the link to this map. Croatia was never this big because the Dalamatian coast was controlled by Venice during Tomislav and after Tomislav Croatia was incorporated into Hungary.  The map about Serbia is not from a Serb source, but rather a Byzantine source.  Just a thought. Happyman22

None of the two maps are correct - do not have them in the article!. Population of medieval bosnia was not serb nor croat but bosnjani. Observe the map's are propaganda marked. The maps also neglect the bosnian state, which has the oldest statehood among them all. Damir Mišić 18:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In reality Bosnjani is a Turkish word. Bosnjani are not Turks but rather Slavs. The were called Bosnians and under Stefan Tvtrko I was at its greatest medieval extent.  The word Bosniak is turkish for Bosnian.

I don't get your point. Of course Bosniak means Bosnian, there is no difference what so ever. Bosnjani = Bosniak = Bosnian = Bosniaque. That is already obvious to me. But Bosniak is rather more the latin version of Bosnian, whereas Bosnian is the germanic. Note in french Bosnian is caleed Bosniaque, in Italian Bosnian is called Bosniako. Damir Mišić

- They say Bosnia was part of the Kingdom of Serbia, but Bosnia was a Kingdom for itself, with an own bosnian culturel identity, money etc. BESIDES Serbia! since Ban Boric 1150. Bosnia worked together with Serbia and Croatia (against Hungary,...), the nobleman/lords/... married into croat, serb, hungarian and even bavarian families.

The De Administrando says that there have been two serb villages in Bosnia during the 800´s! Does that make Bosnia SERB LANDS? No! But YES, since THEN serbs are settling in Bosnia, among other peoples, who didnt have the strength and to declare an independent state/kingdom!

That SERB LANDS MAP shows the territorial aspirations of the Serbs, TODAY. That aspirations seem to change with every generation. Why didnt you draw in Bulgaria, Hungary or Mazedonia as SERB LAND. Draw in ALL serbian territorial aspirations and not just those, in Bosnia and Croatia. The serbian origin is over the Karpats anyway, is that SERB LAND?

You are creating that Big Serbia right now, but it never existed! That map really hurts, because it motivates the serbs (Chetniks) to bring that entire territory into their control!The instrument is systematically ethnic cleansing and killing, you know that! And my family has experienced that 3 times in the last century!

Most of the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia were settled there during the Osman.Empire by the Turks, as cheap workers and soldiers against the catholic (since 1700 ca.). In 1624 the Osmans counted 75000 orthodox bosnians, 150000 cath and 450000 musl.bosnians/bosniak/bosnjan.... whatever. Let rule Love, Peace & Truth.

...but that map is a shame!


 * I couldn't have said it better myself, what is said above is really summarizing this article's intentions for a great serbia. Please I beg you people come to your senses. Damir Mišić 13:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)



AGAIN the SERB LANDS MAP shows Bosnia and Rascia as territories, which belong to Serbia.

BOSNIA NEVER WAS A PART OF SERBIA!!! But Serbias neighbouring country!

Serbia is Rascia, Kosovo, Banat, Vojvodina... NOT BOSNIA! To be precise: even Travunja, Humska,... never have been territories of Serbia!

Whats wrong with you? Honestly!

This site is about SERBS, not SERBIA, anyway!

PEACE!



No, you are both completely wrong. According to reputable sources, in 9th century, territory inhabited by Serbs was as is depicted on the map, and was called Serbia. Nikola 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No Nikola, Serbia did not even exist then, Rascia and so on did. Damir Mišić

What would you think about Germany, if they declare Poland is german territory?

According to reputable sources, in 9th century... hmhm, REPUTABLE?

The Serbian kingdom (centered around Duklja) was established in the 11th century. Marked by a disintegration and crises, it lasted until the end of 12th century.

Neither Bosnia nor Dalmatia have ever been part of your Fantasy-Kingdom, Smolenski! But yes, Bosnia was part of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empie during a ten(?) year long occupation in the 800s. (year 814).


 * No, the Serbian kingdom did not exist, but territory inhabited by Serbs, which is depicted on the map, was called Serbia. Nikola 07:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Serbian borders are at the Drina. Sure do Serbs settle in Bosnia, but that doesn´t mean its PART of Serbia. I still don´t understand why you didn´t draw in all the other territorial ambitions of the serbs. Are there any sources (except serb ones) where these Serb-settlements exactly are(800-1100)? Administrando talks about 2 villages! (Maybe Byzant promised that land to serbs?? I don´t know tell me!)

Anyway, this selfmade map only creates hostility, there is no other ethnic-group on wikipedia which uses such maps or presents itself in such an aggressive way. Delete the map!


 * Yes I say the same delete it, or somebody will put a totally disputed tag on this article. Damir Mišić 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The borders of Serbia are at the Drina now, but that doesn't mean they were in 9th century. No, Administrando says that Serbs settled in Dalmatia. The map draws mostly from it. Nikola 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"According to a Byzantine source, Tsar Traklije (610-641) allowed them (the Serbs) to settle around Salonika, which they did, subsequently withdrawing from it to the north."

About Serb lands map: I draw this map based on the one from this historical atlas: Istorijski atlas, Beograd, 1999. This atlas is work of a 10 university professors, thus I do not see why this map should not be accurate. In different time periods Bosnia belonged either to Serbia either to Croatia either was independent. This map only show one specific historical period in which it belonged to Serbia. Claim that this map show the modern Serb territorial aspirations is ridiculous, especially because most of this territory belong to Serbian state Republika Srpska. Thus, denial of the Serb history in these regions actually show modern Bosniak and Croatian territorial aspirations towards Republika Srpska. Anyway, since we do not talk about modern political aspirations but about one historical event, please show some relevant sources, which claim that map is not correct. Claim that Bosnia was a kingdom or that it belonged to Croatia have nothing to do with this map, since it was in completelly different time periods. A basic history classes from elementary school would help, of course. PANONIAN  (talk)  17:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen now, nobody contradicts the accuracy of the map. But the explaination of it is wrong!, it says: "lands were serbs lived" and that is wrong no matter what you believe yourself to know. The text should be changed into "land controled by serbs". Damir Mišić 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And how you know that these lands were not populated with Serbs? You have a population census data from the 9th century perhaps? Of course, I will not just talk, but quote sources. Here is one: Anto Babić, Istorija naroda Jugoslavije, prvi dio, Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1947. Interesting book, dont you agree? The author is Croat, and it is published in Sarajevo, thus there is no Serb propaganda here. Here is the quote: "From the beginning (of its existence), Bosnia was a motherland (domovina) of both, Serbs and Croats" (page 37 for you). Also, many other Medieval Bosnian documents refer to the Serb identity of the population who lived there, it is simply ridiculous to deny the existence of Serbs in Bosnia in the medieval ages. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes, Bosnia was founded in the 12th century, while roots of Serbia dating back to the 8th century (a difference of 4 centuries), So, please do not talk that Bosnia is older than Serbia, but read your history book from elementary school again please. PANONIAN  (talk)  21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And by the way Damir, despite your (Croatian) nickname on Wikipedia, I just noticed from your contributions in various articles that you edit those articles from Bosniak point of view, not from the Croatian one. I just wonder how that can be? (not related to our dispute here, of course). PANONIAN  (talk)  21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Panonian! "Bosnia was a motherland (domovina) of both, Serbs and Croats" Great! "it is simply ridiculous to deny the existence of Serbs in Bosnia in the medieval ages." yes! but nobody denies that anyway!

The only problem is that you insist that at least one map on this site has to show Bosnia as PART of Serbia.

The written history of Bosnia (not the state) is older than 1200 years. It have been 10-30 years in that huge time period, in which Bosnia has been part of the Byzantine Empire (ca814ca834).

...and you have to pick out exactly that time period? ...and you have to show it around on this site, even if no other ethnic group on wikip. presents itself with such maps? even if it creates hostility??? ...YOU are denying the existence of ANY non-Serbs in Bosnia with that map, because it shows purely serb population with clear boundaries and Bosnia as Part of Serbia.

Bosnia never was exclusively Serb Lands!

Heretik

If you did not noticed, this article IS NOT abot Bosnia, but about SERBS, and for history of those Serbs IS important to show that lands where they live today were part of Serbia. I do not care if you post a map where Bosnia belonged to Ottoman Empire into article about Bosniaks, or when it belonged to Croatia into article about Croats, but I repeat, this article is about Serbs, not about Bosnia. PANONIAN  (talk)  00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * and for history of those Serbs IS important to show that lands where they live today were part of Serbia***

For "those Serbs" you´re talking about (I hope its the minority) it IS important, because they want to create that GreatSerbia. See what happened 89-95. And you´re still proud of all that? and you still pushing the same "ideas"?

Why don´t you add an article about the brothership of Serbs, Croats and Bosniak before the wars? or today! Why don´t you write, that the only way to make that region bloom is TOLERANCE. Noooo, you´d rather post something to honour and motivate further KILLING! for what !? ah, I remember: Bosnia, part of Serbia. Thank you!

I´m really lucky to have some Serb friends in Belgrade, so I know (otherwise I wouldn´t believe it) that not every of "those Serbs" is so "shallow minded" to believe in these "ideas". Everyone who can read doesn´t need such maps anyway. No other nation on wikip. got one!

Those Serbs only want to know their history, while Bosniak nationalists who want to create Unitary Islamic Bosnia (do not worry, there will be article about it very soon), denying the history of Serbs who live there. The idea of Unitary Islamic Bosnia is guilty for Bosnian war, so you are the one who still support those ideas, not me. PANONIAN  (talk)  23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your nuts! Even the Bosniaks wouldn´t allow an islamic state! Unitary Islamic... ha, ha you´re joking! That´s the serb propaganda again! Probably they busted a guy who posted images on wikipedia: a map which says that "Bosnia is Bosnian Land" ha! The Bosniaks fought for a democratic, undivided and mixed Bosnia as it was since ever!

I told you a mio times, that noone denies the serbian history!

Who started the war in Bosnia? Well the whole world knows that!

For what did they start it? Well the whole world knows that, too!

...and by the way: I don´t support ANY ideas! ANY!:) ...and its funny to see you trying to change black into white. you really tried hard, you really did, but I don´t have the time to play with you any longer.

PEACE

So, you cry because I showed your true face, right? The fact that several of your nationalistic friends just visited the talk page of the new article is a proof that I am right:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unitary_Islamic_Bosnia

You people are so desperate to present yourselves as angels and Serbs as savages, and of course you want to delete every article which can show your true face. Since you already vandalized all articles related to Serbs in Bosnia, you want to vandalize this one too, right? PANONIAN  (talk)  03:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pannonian it is so obvious what a kind of nationalistic editor you are, if you plan on people respecting your edits you will have to play your cards a whole lot better, pehaps even hide your terribly high nationalistic ambitions. However I think the text under the DAI image looks fine now but I want Bosnia to be written in equally big letters as Croatia and Bosnia. Damir Mišić 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you explain what are my "nationalistic ambitions"? No, you cannot, do you? As for the map, it is from the 9th century, Bosnian state did not existed before the 12th century, thus, despite your wishes it would not be correct to write Bosnia in equally big letters as Croatia and Serbia. Why would I do such a thing? PANONIAN  (talk)  23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Panonian,

"the Serbian kingdom (centered around Duklja) was established in the 11th century. Marked by a disintegration and crises, it lasted until the end of 12th century."

You´re so stupid Panonian, it hurts! No one takes you for serious anymore...
 * May I reming you that No personal attacks applies even if you do not sign your comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"the Serbian kingdom" is not same as "the Serbian state". You can notice a difference here, can you? PANONIAN  (talk)  19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bosnia is mentioned by DAI in the 9th century as "HORION BOSONA",horion means state and bosona means Bosnia, by other words State Bosnia. Change letters or else the totally disputed tag will pop up again. Damir Mišić 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It was simply mentioned as one of the parts of Serbia, not state. PANONIAN  (talk)  00:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)