Talk:Serbs/Archive 2

Eagle/crest

Does anyone have any idea why the following was cut from the article? "(The eagle is rarely displayed without the shield covering its chest.)" -- Jmabel | Talk 20:55, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

First, I have to say a large THANK YOU for watching over this article :)

No, no idea, so I returned it. Nikola 10:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But now you've added a symbol with a specific link to the generally unrecognized Bosnian Serb republic. I think that is a rather objectionable choice. I'm not expert on matters Serb, so I am only going to remark but not edit on a point like this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know that some people don't like the site, but I believe that this coat is better, as it is less specific. I will replace it if I find something more suitable. Nikola 02:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Myths

Moved from the article:

There seems to be a widespread myth in Europe (Ukraine, for example) about Serbs being more sexually attractive and generally better equipped for sex than other nations. This myth is as yet unconfirmed.

• • And will doubtless remain that way. Can we move a single paragraph to BJAODN? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Historic map

That historic map at Image:Cpw10ct.gif needs replacement for a couple of reasons such as copyright and clarity – see its talk page. A new version under construction is at Image:Serbia - 10th Century - De Administrando Imperio.png. Note: the new image's talk page is at Wikimedia Commons, where your Wikipedia login is unknown.

The technically hard part is done – recreating the coastline, islands, and rivers. The scholarly hard part is still in progress – determining exactly what to put on the map, and where to put it. Contribute on those talk pages, please. -- Kbh3rd 18:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Captioning current map

We need to come to a consensus on captioning Image:Balkans05.jpg. A week or two back, my suggestion of simply mentioning that Republika Srpska was "generally unrecognized" was rejected. Now someone has gone in and added an accusation of "genocide" to the caption. Obviously, we have no agreement: we have one party that rejects even mentioning lack of international recognition and another who wants to wave a blood-drenched flag. I again suggest "generally unrecognized" as a compromise.

Or we could remove the map from this article. This is supposed to be an article about an ethnic group, not about political history. I realize that they cannot be completely separated but (for example) the article Jew does not deal with the disputed borders of Israel.-- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to remove the map from the article for reasons that you stated and primarily because RS is a political entity and not a Serbian nation state.--Dado 03:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement that Republika Srpska is generally unrecognised is nonsense. Republika Srpska is internationally recognised as entity (state) within Bosnia-Herzegovina. As for map, this article is about Serbs and both, Serbia and Republika Srpska are Serbian states (no matter if somebody like this or not). As for genocide claims, we could claim that genocide against Serbs was committed in half of Balkans in the last century (including the last Bosnian war). Thousands of Serbs were expelled from Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thousands of them were killed and tortured in concentration camps in Sarajevo and other cities, which were under control of Bosniak government in the last war (but I didn’t wrote this below the map of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Dado just want to present his political anti-Serb attitude here User:PANONIAN

However, we could specify exact political statuses of both states below the map. We can write that Republika Srpska is entity within BIH and that Serbia is republic within SCG. User:PANONIAN

That would be an improvement, but I still doubt the appropriateness of the map in this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:28, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

RS is not internationally recognized. Its existance is stipulated through Dayton Agreement between warring parties in 1995. RS is a political entity not a state. RS is not a Serbian state but teritory where Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are constituent nations of which latter two lay equal legal property claims to disputed teritory that was taken away from them by force. Please check sources: Dayton Peace Agreement, RS constitution, ICTY. Everything else is, to say the least, wishfull thinking missused as a factual information. By the way I cannot believe that we are having yet another discussion about this issue (see discussion page Republika Srpska). There is 0 proof that concentration camps existed in Sarajevo. In fact individials that raise such claims have never come up with viable and credible facts to prove them. On the other hand ethnic cleansing and genocide commited by RS authorities were proven beyond doubt at ICTY. I accept a fact that genocide was commited by Croatian Fascist regime over Serbian and Jewish population during WWII but it serves in no way to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing over Bosniak population in 1992-95. This is a second time that Panonian has resorted to personal attacks (quote: anti-Serb attitute) in order to discredit the factually correct information. I repeat my opinion that the map in question has no place on this article or any other article which serves to justify political propaganda of Greater Serbia.--Dado 23:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For Jmabel: Well, I do not agree with you. This map only shows two political entities, in which Serbs live as ethnic majority, and which are named after Serbs. It is only a location map, which shows where Serbs mainly live and nothing more. For example, I draw a similar map, which shows North and South Ossetia in the same way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ossetia.jpg I know that even some Serbs would not regard my map as appropriate, because there are Serbs who regard Montenegro as Serbian land too. However, I simply used census results for drawing this map, and that results claim that largest ethnic group in Montenegro are ethnic Montenegrins, not Serbs. One more thing: comparison between Republika Srpska and disputed lands of Israel is not appropriate because there is nothing disputed about Republika Srpska. Republika Srpska is internationally recognized entity within Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs are one of three constitutional nations of Bosnia-Herzegovina (not to mention that those Serbs didn’t come from Serbia, but they live there for hundreds of years). Problem is only that some Bosniaks do not understand these facts. User:PANONIAN

For Dado: RS is internationally recognised as a non-independent state (generally called entity). It is a state in the same way as Serbia, Texas or Bayern. And please Dado can you stop your nationalistic anti-Serb propaganda already? If there was not genocide committed against Serbs in Bosnia, can you tell me, why Bosniak leaders and generals are charged for war crimes against the Serbs? I never deny that authorities of RS committed genocide against Bosniaks, but why you want to deny undisputed fact that your own government committed genocide against the Serbs? As for your claim that I personally attacking you, can you prove that you do not have anti-Serb attitude? Everything you say and done so far prove otherwise. And please, stop this science fiction story about Greater Serbia. Your story is actually a story about unitary Islamic Bosnia-Herzegovina. Issue of Republika Srpska have nothing to do with Serbia (smaller or greater). It is issue about Serbs who live there for hundreds of years (You know that because your ancestors were probably Serbs too). User:PANONIAN

One more thing, Dado: You say that all three nations: Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are constitutional in Republika Srpska and therefore it is not a Serbian state. Well, according to constitution of Serbia, Serbia is state of all its citizens no matter what is their nationality. However, these things does not change the fact that both oh these states (Serbia and RS) are predominantly Serbian. User:PANONIAN

There is a difference beween war crimes and genocide as well as there is a difference between killing 60 and 10000 people. Although both are crimes there is a difference and word genocide is not to be used lightly. There is a difference between idictment and convictions (see cases prosecutor vs Krsic and prosecutor vs. Brdjanin) I would recommend you to visit www.icty.org if you need more proof on what is a war crime and what is a genocide. It is true that Serbs are a majority in RS especially after the ethnic cleansing that was commited in that region but it does not make it (from legal or any other stand point) a Serbian nation state especially while there are still legal claims to the same teritory by non-Serb population. If you want to point out the presence of Serbian population in the Balkan region there are several maps that were created from census data from 1991 that would be much more appropriate to be shown in this article rather than a political map that you are trying to push through. Finally, if I understand correctly, you are calling me a Serb who is fighting for a unitary Islamic Bosnia-Herzegovina?? The depths of your POV nonsense are begining to amuse me.--Dado 06:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat again: I do not claim that RS is Serbian nation state. Both, Serbia and RS are not Serbian nation states. I only say that they are predominantly Serbian states and the whole purpose of this map is to show the location where Serbian people mostly live today and to show two political entities, which are named after Serbs. If we already discuss this, then RS is more close to be Serbian nation state then Serbia, because Serbs are one of three constitutional nations of RS, while Serbs are not constitutional nation in Serbia at all, because Serbia is defined as a state of all its citizens. Second thing: Serbs were majority in the territory of present day RS before the war too. Today, population of RS is about 90% Serbian, and before the war it was something between 60% and 70% Serbian. You can claim that Bosniaks were ethnic majority in some municipalities of RS before the war, but most of the territory of present day RS had Serbian majority before that war. And fact is that Serbs were the one who lost largest portion of their ethnic territories during the Yugoslav wars and largest percent of refugees are Serbs too. So, I know that you want to present here that only your people were victims of the war, but this is completely false, because Serbs and Croats were victims of the war as much as Bosniaks are. Difference is only that Bosniak leaders had efficient propaganda machine during the war. For example, Bosniak government killed their own citizens in the massacre of Markale in Sarajevo and then claimed that Serbs done this (It is proven that this grenade couldn’t come from Serb positions). So, do not try to present your leaders as angels, because we both know that leaders of Bosniak SDA political party are Islamic fanatics who hiding behind pro-European rhetoric, but their true goal is to create unitary Islamic state, in which there would be no place for Serbs and Croats. As for ethnic maps from 1991, that maps are out of date now, and their purpose is purely historical. My intention was to show where Serbs live today. And I do not say that you are a Serb. I only said that your ancestors probably were Serbs, but that does not mean that you are Serb too. For example, anthropology claims that most of the Serbs are descendants of Illyrians. So, my ancestors probably were Illyrians, but that does not make me to be Albanian, does it? User:PANONIAN

Dado, I don't know where you get off coming to the definition for Serbs and then leaving lame comments. You know nothing about RS or Serbs, (although a very good note was you probably were one at one point), I should go and make a dispute on the Bosnian Muslim site and say the fact that they used to be Serbs and Croats but were cowards and took the easy way out, all bosnian muslims now are descendents from COWARDS that lived in the Balkans that didnt want to fight for the glory of their heritage and then were swamped up by the Turks and turned into them even though they arent so today they are all living lies, lives that they arent and were changed because of being wusses and not defending their family and turning on their own people. congratulations.

I don't know where this comment came about only too be few months late. Anyway, if you were remotly right about my heritage (which I cannot see why would that be) I don't see you putting on your resume that you (and all of us) are descendants from monkeys as "you probably were one at one point". Is is amusing to me that some are still pushing this nonsense. Živio --Dado 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Very dumb analogy, because we are Christian, don't believe we derive from Monkeys and there is a lot of evidence to prove, this belongs on a different stub, because we are discussing Serbs, not monkeys, go add that to the monkey stub, because that could very well be where you are from, but sorry you need to learn a thing or two about christianity, very different from being monkeys or cutting peoples heads off nowadays, have a good day dado, i was just wondering, what slava did your relatives celebrate before they started wearing turbins? Oh, and to add were arent talking about speculation here, if we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? Only a few decided to change? I'm talking about good hard facts, you were serbian, you were christian... (christianity started before islam, was in the balkans well before islam spread there). So dont elude the whole topic, you are bitter, so you want to cause trouble on our history and information because your's is a black mark, its like you popped out onto earth when islam started, dont forget where you come from, i pity the fool...

(the previous 2 paragraphs were anonymous, 25 July 2005)

Number of Serbs in Albania

??????--Hipi Zhdripi 00:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

first mention of Serbs

Who claims the Serboi were first mentioned in the 1st century by Ptolemy? The first mention of them was by Plinius the Younger in the first century BC (69-75) as living on the Black sea and the Sea of Azov as Serboi in his Geographica.

Populations

We're really short on citations for populations here; could someone please add some? You are obviously getting your numbers somewhere... -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Again, Joy just added a very precise figure for 1991, but still no citation. Surely no one knew a number accurate to 6 digits off the top of his head! This came from somewhere, cite it! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this before - it's from the 1991 census. See links in Demographics of Croatia. --Joy [shallot] 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborians

Part of the section Subgroups with Zlatiborians listed there should be removed. (User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић 23 July 2005)

• What part, and why? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborians should be deleted, since they're not a notable subgroup. I live in Zlatibor. All of Zlatiborians are Serbs, but they are not a separated subgroup.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 11:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy

We were wondering if we could be added as a link to the main page for several reasons:

• We are engaged in genealogy and historical research and help people out,
• We are independent and objective in our research,
• We are a real society and base our work on facts,
• We believe that we can contribute with our sites content due to the rich makeup of our society members from all ethnic backgrounds, religions and all walks of live.

Please see our site at Rodoslovlje: Serbian Genealogical Society

User:SGS 3 Aug 2005

Overestimation of population

I added all the statistics up (plus added another 50,000 for any that may have gone missing) and got 9.9 millon, hardly close to 11 million. Please considering revising the number. (anon 6 Aug 2005)

• And I see that someone has now revised the total. I guess that's OK; on the other hand, none of the numbers seem to have sources cited, does someone want to work on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Long-term protection

This page has been protected for quite a while. Doesn't this violate the spirit and standards of Wikipedia? Jpers36 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It does, but having having to fix something each time it is "vandalized" takes more work than to just keep it at protected status and discussing the edits. On a side note, someone should check out where those vandals are coming from... because I found it curious that the Serb page is vandalized and none of the other former Yugoslav nations had no such problems. --Hurricane Angel 04:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been protected for quite a while, yes, but before that it was vandalised a lot, too. I'll unprotect it now and we'll see how it goes. --Joy [shallot] 12:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Serbs in USA

My relatives live in USA, and though several apply as "Americans" they call themselves Serbs. And no change can change the fact that they are Serbs. Look at [1] for a little more detailed info, please. It is well known that Chicago is the second mostly-populated by Serbs city everywhere. HolyRomanEmperor 10:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Weren't we just through all of this (above)? Yes, it is possible to be an American (by residency and/or citizenship) and a Serb (by ethnicity and/or citizenship). American is not an ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a citation for 300,000 Serbs around Chicago? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it should be cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of opening a can of worms, U.S. census estimates are notoriously low for Eurpopean nationalities. I don't know their methodology, but this seems to be pretty consistently the case. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but why delete my statings; there is absolutly no matter if they are considered as Americans by the USA government, the people that want them to be seperated from Serbs, are probably those that don't want the Serbs to seem numerious (probably some nationalsits that hate all Serbs). The last time that I checked, if you are a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church, if you speak the Serbian language and if you have a Serbian name (also, if you honor the Serb traditions and know your legacy) you are a Serb. I am inclining this... again http://chicagoserbs.tripod.com/index2s.html and even though US (anti-nationalist, albeit pro-American) censi claim this, their tradition cannot be dismissed just with a tiny paper and USA government's statements. They marry between eachother, and when their inter-marry with the Anglo-Americans, their children mostly become Orthodox Christian, assimilate into Serbs.

Who put that 9.2 milion number? Even if you don't count the American Serbs (in which case it would be around 10.000.000) the quantity (do the math) is 9.800.000 HolyRomanEmperor 11:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear: as you can see if you look at the edit history, I'm not the person who deleted this. I think it should be in the article, presuming citation can be found.

Again, the issue isn't whether they are "Americans" or "Serbs": they are both, just like someone can be a schoolteacher and a chess-player: these are not mutually exclusive characters. Most Americans consider themselves "hyphenated Americans". The issue is how many Americans are Serbs and, as I said, the U.S. Census number should be considered a bare minimum. I don't know their methodology in these matters, but I do know that their counts are consistently the lowest numbers on such questions. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Did you look http://chicagoserbs.tripod.com/index2s.html ? If you want a site with more info about the 300,000 Chicago Serbs (or half a million American Serbs) just say; I am sure that I will be ablo to find some. I am experiencing some technical difficulties with my computer, so I don't think that I will succeed to Edit the page (although I will try) . Is it much to ask you for it? HolyRomanEmperor 08:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't until now, but the problem is that appears just to be someone's personal site, and they don't indicate where they got their information. Pretty much anyone can put up a site making claims like that; it isn't any more authoritative than you as an editor coming in and just claiming something.

You might want to contact the person who created that site and aske where they got their information. Then, if their source is something more authoritative, you may have an appropriate source. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I found where from the creator listed that info; it is just the 2004 American census. I have watched recently on television the "Chicago-second largest Serbian metropolis" show; it is very acurate; then again, to appease several users, it appears that I will have to look up the Internet for some time for more proofs (like I said, the some 300,000 Chicago Serbs is a well-known fact; just like it is well-known that George Bush is the current president...) HolyRomanEmperor 18:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no 2004 U.S. census. The most recent census is 2000. And saying "it comes from the census" is not a citation. Where is a document from the U.S. census (either on paper or on line) showing these numbers? If it's a "well-known fact", why can't we find decent citation.

Please understand, I don't have a dog in this race: I don't have any particular interest in how many Serbs live in the U.S., or in Greater Chicago, only in getting a decent citation for a number in this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I used the calculator that there is almost 9,800,000 Serbs in all, if you didn't know, so please aquiesce to my request to change it (my current 14.4 Kb/s isn't sufficient) Just do the math. He also detracked 100,000 Serbs from Germany, and gave no proof (besides, I found around 597,000 in one encyclopedia at my cousin's) Look next to the 140,000 number, there is a link which leads to a 2004 USA claims in pdf. (actually, it is from 2000) but did not validate the German number. Please revert 9,2 million to over 9,8 milion and 500,000 to 600,000 HolyRomanEmperor 20:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't edit it yourself: the section is no larger than the one you are successfully editing here.

"In one encyclopedia at my cousin's" is not a citation. Name the encyclopedia, name the year, name the article. And without a citation, your 600,000 is no better than someone else's 500,000. Please read Wikipedia:cite sources: this is fundamental.

Next to the "140,000 number" (the article says 140,400) is, indeed, a link that confirms the number (actually, gives an absurdly precise 140,337, certainly a case of precision exceeding accuracy). That is from the 2000 U.S. census. So how does that jibe with your claim that http://chicagoserbs.tripod.com/index2s.html number claiming twice this many just in and around Chicago came from "the 2004 [or 2000] American census"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't. And I meantioned the article just for you to see. I am not contradicting it, or anything, I am just pointing out an interesting article to you (what did you think that I did?)... But the person had changed 600,000 to 500,000 without even noting in the talk page. Does that mean that I can freely deduct 500,000 Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, or 1,000,000 from Serbia and Montenegro? (without someone changing it) HolyRomanEmperor 10:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I meantioned the article just for you to see. I am not contradicting it, or anything, I am just pointing out an interesting article to you. The person had changed 600,000 to 500,000 without even noting in the talk page. Does that mean that I can freely deduct 500,000 Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, or 1,000,000 from Serbia and Montenegro? HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this technical problem is both maiking me mad and making me seem foolish on this talk page. I will stop posting for a while, until I solve this, but that doesn't mean that I will stop reading. (you asked how could I post? simply, by pressing the + right to the "edit this page"; for it opens a completly new Edition, but continues just after the last post) HolyRomanEmperor 18:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Yes, I sometimes do that myself.

For what it's worth: I don't tend to jump in either way when someone replaces one plausible uncited number with another (unless I see that someone has a habit of changing numbers around without justification). I pretty consistently defend decently cited numbers from being replaced by uncited or poorly cited numbers. And I will accept almost any citation (unless from a seriously suspect or biased source) as better than no citation. So I don't see much to choose between an uncited 500,000 in Germany and an uncited 600,000 in Germany. If someone suddenly changed that to 1,000,000, I'd probably revert, just because it seems so implausible.-- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Do you speak Serbo-Croatian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyRomanEmperor (talk • contribs) 9 Sept 2005

Assuming that's addressed to me, no. I can read a little, but it's at the level of deciphering. I have only a minimal knowledge of any of the Slavic languages, probably a vocabulary of under 800 words other than cognates. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

My god, that Vandal is vandlising the number .... AGAIN....

If you take free time, you will calculate those numbers yourself, you don't need to take my word. Besides, in the Georgraphical Encyclopedium of Mladen Janković it says "Serbs are a Soth Slavic people, one of the consituent peoples of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the number varies in cases like should we seperated the American Serbs, and should we seperate the Serbs that are considered as Yugoslavs; the highest number (if we count all these) is somewhere near 10,000,000." HolyRomanEmperor 09:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am asking 'cause I found diaspora Serb pages (on cyrilic) Could we, PLEASE, LOCK this page (after the re-edit)? HolyRomanEmperor 09:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing happening here even approaches the threshold for protecting a page.

Given the misspellings in the quotation ("Soth", "seperated"), I presume you are translating, not quoting something in front of you in English. And I'm pretty sure the name of the work cannot include "Georgraphical". If you give the exact citation (actual title of the work, in the original language; name of article; page number; publisher; year), I will certainly be glad to see that in the article. Also, if he says that is the highest number, does he offer other numbers (for the total or for particular populations, ideally at particular dates), those would be useful to have. And can you try to explain what exactly is meant by "the Serbs that are considered as Yugoslavs": lacking a date, and not knowing the writer, this could mean a lot of very different things. This could be inclusive of a lot of populations not usually counted as Serbs. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, yes, I am translating. The year is 1990, although to find the publishing house, I will have to dig-in a little (the book is not currently in my hands). Although, I know one thing; the publisher is from Novi Sad. Without the Yugoslavs, he claims that there were around 5,650,000 Serbs in the world. He sistematicly seperates: 1. citizens of the Globe that consider themselves Serbs (a little over 5 and a half million; and 2. citizens of the Globe that are by many factors (dominantly, the Serb Orthodox Church and the father's lineage) Serbs (a little over 10,000,000) HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• But what, at that date, before the breakup of Yugoslavia, does "without the Yugoslavs" mean? I'm finding this all very confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The first (around 5,000,000) is the number of citiyens of the globe declaring themselves Serbs in a national cencus. The Second claims the number of Serbs in the globe bz origin, predominantly those concidering themselves Yugoslavs (around 3,750,000) and others concidering themselves Germans, Australians and Americans, mostly. Besides, the lowest numbers of Serbs in diaspora is 1,5 milion and the highest is 2,5 milion. While we have over 8 milion Serbs that are constitutional in Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That last editor that changed the number of Serbs to 8-9 milion wrote that "Nikola Tesla is a Croat and nothing more... He cannot be concidered otherwise as in most encyclopedias he is concidered a Croat" He is obviously a propaganda-spreader... HolyRomanEmperor 19:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)