Talk:Political entities inhabited or ruled by Serbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Name order

I think that the order of the lands in the article should be from the oldest to the present ones (like it is in the article on Serbian Wikipedia). Also, there are more lands mentioned in that article on Serbian Wikipedia which should be mentioned here too. PANONIAN (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Slavonia

HRE, why you removed West Slavonia from list? According to this map, there were 3 Serb autonomous regions in Croatia, and one of them was West Slavonia:

PANONIAN (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This article contains many nationalistic and irrelevant parts. Will get back to tthis soon. The title itself is extreme. Ever since Kosova is a Serbian land? I though more than 90% there are Albanian. Extremely nationalistic article....needs lots of cleanup. Thank you, Ilir pz 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were several criteria for writting this. One of them was to mention lands where Serbs were (or are) constitutional nation. Despite the numbers of Albanians and Serbs, Serbs in Kosovo were regarded as nation (and still are if I am not wrong), thus that is why Kosovo is mentioned. I will not object if you write article with title "Albanian Lands" and if you mention Kosovo there too. PANONIAN (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian propaganda

There was no Kosovo and Metohija in Yugoslavia and this article contents just Serbian propaganda. Wikipedia doesn’t need such articles. And Macedonia is not a Serbian land. There live just a small percent of Serbs. There are more Serbian people in USA. Is USA a Serbian land too? Is the whole world a Serbian land? This article offends all people who lives in Balkan and it should be deleted. --Bet 0 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the preface part at all? It is noted there that list include lands and states where Serbs are constitutional nation. Serbs were declared to be constitutional nation in Macedonia (in 2001 I think) together with Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, etc. As for Kosovo and Metohija it was official name of the province. In Albanian version of this name it was something like Kosova e Dukadjinit (if I remember correct). As for USA, it is not Serbian land because Serbs are not constitutional nation there. PANONIAN (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is extreme nationalistic. I mean just look at the title! You are calling Bosnia and Herzegovina a Serbian land!!! The preface sure tries to explain something, but it is just a bad try to hide the real reasons of writing this article. Accept of Serbia, none of these lands are Serbian lands. Where are the facts that they are? It is not fair to use Wikipedia to make propaganda of a big Serbian state. This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not your private homepage, and you should show more respect for this project. And last but not least: Kosovo and Metohija was never the official name, it was just Kosova or Kosovo. Well this problem with its name will be solved soon I guess, because it wont last that long until it gets its independence, and then everyone of us will write its real name. I would agree with your article, only if you change its name. I mean come one: Serbian lands?!--Mig11 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So, how would you name this article then? The purpose of this article is mainly historical. It tend to name all Serbian lands during the history from White Serbia to the present ones. The question is how would you define one Serbian land, or how would you make a difference what is and what is not a Serbian land? First about the name of the article: There is similar article on Serbian Wikipedia, and its name is "Serbian lands during the history". So, would you agree that we change name into that one or you want to propose another name? The second question is a list of the present Serbian lands. What you propose that we do there? Perhaps we can divide them into 2 groups: one which will list lands where Serbs are majority and another that will only mention where Serbs are constitutional nation, but not listing that areas as Serbian Lands? PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed some parts of the article, so what you think now? PANONIAN (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but...

...this article is incorrigibly POV. As it is unlikely that it would be deleted (see recent attempts at deleting Serbian nationalistic drivel that were defeated by mobilization of Serbian "voters" from sr.wiki and elsewhere), I'm sticking a Totallydisputed tag here. --Elephantus 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

But, say what's wrong with it. You need to justify your arguements, rather than just putting a tag. P. S. I've noticed that this is your n-th tag. :))) Why don't you try to solve at least one of the arguements that you consider incorrect? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The title is problematic/Serbian nationalistic POV, the introduction is problematic/Serbian nationalistic POV, the list is problematic/Serbian nationalistic POV, the whole concept of this article is generally problematic. Guess why are there no articles such as German Lands, Italian Lands, Hungarian Lands, Russian Lands etc? --Elephantus 08:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Elephantus: I absolutely agree with you! We should propose this article for deletion. I also see that user bet_0 had proposed it for speedy deletion. But it seems that is not the right way. Anyway this kind of propaganda articles shouldn’t be written in Wiki. --Mig11 08:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for you too, but the explanation is very poor. Please explain WHY THESE THINGS ARE PROBLEMATIC?! Until you do that, I will remove the tag again. PANONIAN (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Panonian: keep on dreaming of Serbian lands…..maybe one day you will wake up and see where Serbia is today. You poor Serbian nationalistic brainwashing-victim! --Mig11 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What you talking about? This is mainly a HISTORICAL article. What is wrong to mention Serbian states and provinces during the history? We cannot change history because somebody does not like it. If you have any constructive objections and if you say what exactly is wrong in this article, please propose what we should change here, and we will discuss that. Ok? PANONIAN (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Panonia to je tacno. Samo malo, ako kazes "Serbian Lands" to je kao da kazes "Velika Serbia". Ja znam sta si mislio sa tom "Serbia Land" ali to treba da bude "Serbien Historical Land". Ali ne treba da zaboravish da sadasnje situacia ne dozvoljava "Serbian Land". I ako je to bolje za wikipediu. Ako si interesiran treba ta radis i za "Albanian Lands", "Bosnjen Lands", "Makedonien Lands" "Paionen Lands" "Moesian Lands" (Panonian Lands). --Hevnonen 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • U redu, promeniću naslov u "Historical Serbian Lands". Je li to ok? Naravno, slažem se da treba da postoje članci i o istorijskim zemljama drugih naroda, ali ja nemam dovoljno znanja da to napišem jer ja uglavnom poznajem srpsku istoriju, pa te članke treba da napiše onaj ko zna dovoljno o tome. PANONIAN (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Again: This article is the definition of POV. Title, introduction, list, everything is deeply flawed. I'm sorry that most Serbs are apparently unable or unwilling to realize that. So, a Totallydisputed tag is appropriate here. --Elephantus 09:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Again: you did not said WHY. I cannot realize something which you do not know to explain. Explain why, or do not post the tag, please. PANONIAN (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duklja (9th century, 11th-12th century), Zeta (14th-15th century)

Ako su ove serbian Lands tada ne znam sta mislis sa "Serbian Lands". Mislis li Pravoslvci ili nesto drugo Srbi.--Hevnonen 06:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sta hocu da kazem, mislis gde ima jedno srbsku crkvu to ti je srbska zemlja? Ili gde je jedan srbski car to ti je srbska semlja?--Hevnonen 06:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jedan srbski car, prisustvo Srbskoga jezika i Srbske crkve, kao i vecina vlastele: da, to je srpska zemlja.
Ne, ne misli se na Pravoslavci, no samo Srbi. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pa generalno stanovište srpske istorije jeste da su stanovnici Duklje i Zete bili Srbi. Dakle, zato su ovde. Možemo prodiskutovati o svakoj od zemalja pomenutih u spisku posebno ako želiš. Na početku sam postavio neke kriterijume po kojima se nešto može uvrstiti: "The list include lands and states that were mainly inhabited or ruled by Serbs during the history, as well as lands and states where Serbs were official, constitutional or titular nation." Možemo diskutovati i o tim kriterijumima ako je problem? PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephantus,

You cannot simply say that it's POV and not place your arguements. Serbs have been broken for 1,000 years, unlike other nations which attained unity. I believe that there is a thing such as Hungarian Lands article, but it just has a different title. And regarding the German Lands. Well, let's make it, then! --HolyRomanEmperor 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This statement reminds me of Germans before WWII who claimed that they were deprived of their manifest destiny to live in a single state and were unjustly divided in several states. The same logic led to fascism and hollocaust. --Dado 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For Dado: If you talk about fascism, first see how many fascists you will find in fascist Bosniak SDA political party and then speak about your neighbours. Besides this, I do not see what Germans and fascism have to do with this historical article? PANONIAN (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Germans have nothing to do with the article. It is anology of a doctrine. Somehow it is difficult for some (east of Drina) to stay within their historical borders and leave their neighbors alone. As for SDA, beside the point that I don't subscribe to their politics, I don't think any of them subscribe to fascism either. --Dado 16:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether you like it or not, Serbs live on both sides of Drina. All historical borders are only history and nothing more, every land belong to its people, and not to any country. By your logic, I can also tell to you to stay within borders of your own entity and to leave Serbs in Republika Srpska alone, can I? In this case, it is you who are on other side of the border. Also, the one does not need to be open fascist to be labeled as such. Many fascists want to hide their true political nature, but their political goals speak instead of them. PANONIAN (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is amasing how hard you try to portray me as someone who wants Serbs out of Bosnia a notion that is so absurd I don't know where to start. Obviously you need to make this believable in order to portray me as nationalist and discredit me with it. You do all this without even trying to undersyand my identity and engaging a posibility that many of my friends and some of my relatives are Serb. Technically I am from RS and according to your logic RS also belongs to me and those like me from RS. Unlike you we are in a prime position to say what is wrong with RS as it directly affects our lives. I am also in prime position to discuss this issue with my fellow Serbs from RS, with those who are open for discussion, so you should quit being their advocate as we are perfectly capable of discusing these issues without your interjections. --Dado 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have intentions to portray you in any way or to discredit you. It is you who always start to talk about Serbian nationalism and all my answers to you have only this meaning: "Look at the mirror before you look at somebody else". It is you who first compared Serbs with fascists at this talk page, so what you expected as an answer to that statement? As for RS, it does not affect your life since you live in New York. New York is what belong to you, not RS. So, you do not have right to say what is wrong with RS because you do not live there. As for me being an "advocate", I just clean "bad faith" edits from the articles and you have a lot that can be defined as "bad faith". Just see your own edits, many of them about war, genocide, massacre, etc... Clear bad faith intentions... PANONIAN (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you kindly not to put words in my mouth. I stated my opinion that Holy's statement had a logic of Pre-WWII German propaganda. It is up to you or him to agree or disagree with that statement but not to attack me for raising that valid analogy. Intrestingly your logic follows the doctrine of ethnic cleansing as because of kind like you I am in NY and not in RS. Unbelievable! --Dado 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Eto, jel vidiš o čemu govorim? Namerno ću da ti odgovorim na našem lepom zajedničkom jeziku da bi video da mi nije cilj da te diskreditujem pred drugim korisnicima Vikipedije koji uglavnom ovo ne znaju da čitaju. Jel možeš uopšte da kažeš bilo šta o Srbima a da ne pomeneš rat, etničko čišćenje i slično? Tebe je iz RS proterao jedan politički režim a ne narod koji tamo živi. U kućama Bošnjaka koji su proterani iz RS sada žive Srbi koji su isto tako proterani iz Federacije ili Hrvatske. Oni su došli u RS kao u državu koju su smatrali svojom iz države koju nisu smatrali svojom. Ono što ti izgleda odbijaš da shvatiš to je da su i Srbi bili žrtve rata isto kao i tvoji Bošnjaci. Ja se potpuno slažem da one koji su ubijali i proterivali ljude treba kazniti za ono što su radili, ali pogledaj šta pričaju neki bošnjački političari: oni ne kažu "da treba kazniti one koji su počinili zločine", već kažu "da treba kazniti one koji su počinili zločine i ukinuti Republiku Srpsku!". Dakle namerno žele da prikažu RS kao neku "genocidnu tvorevinu" i da je dovedu u vezu sa ratnim zločinima da bi time ostvarili svoj politički cilj stvaranja unitarne Bosne. Da RS danas ne postoji, verujem da bošnjački političari ne bi uopšte pričali ni o kakvim ratnim zločinima (jer tada ne bi tom pričom mogli da ostvare nikakav politički cilj), a stvarno smatram da je bolesno koristiti nečiju muku i nečije stradanje u takve političke svrhe. Poenta svega je da u RS većinom živi običan narod koji je i sam bio žrtva rata, a RS za njih predstavlja nešto za čega smatraju da ih može zaštititi od novog stradanja i mislim da niko nema pravo da im to oduzme. Žao mi je što neki Bošnjaci ne žele to da shvate. Toliko dakle o ratnim zločinima i etničkom čišćenju. Uostalom, ti si taj koji je mene mnogo puta nazvao srpskim nacionalistom a ja samo podržavam sve narode i ljude na svetu da se oslobode od onog ko ih ugnjetava (ili ko želi da ih ugnjetava), a ako te slučajno zanima potpuno isto mišljenje imam o RS i Kosovu, i kao što mislim da Bošnjaci ne treba da vladaju nad Srbima iz RS, mislim i da Srbi ne treba da vladaju nad kosovskim Albancima (što je mišljenje svakog srpskog nacionaliste, zar ne?). I da dodam još: da se ja pitam sigurno niko ne bi bio proteran iz svoje kuće, ali to što si ti proteran je sada prošlost i to niko ne može promeniti i ispraviti. Istorija je pokazala da su ljudi koji su želeli da isprave ono što su smatrali istorijskom nepravdom samo napravili nove nepravde i izazvali nova stradanja ljudi. I kao što rekoh, ne možemo promeniti ono što je bilo ali možemo sprečiti da se slične stvari dogode u budućnosti. U svakom slučaju to se može sprečiti samo ako se svi narodi i države odreknu onog što smatraju svojim "istorijskim pravom" (što je po meni sinonim želje za okupacijom nečije teritorije) i ostave svoje susede na miru da vladaju sami sobom (pod susedima smatram i države i narode u okviru iste države). PANONIAN (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Panonian said: the independent Bosnia is that what is mentioned here...

So why is it mentioned as Serbian land from to Ottoman conquest?! You are being opposite to bunch of Bosnian historical articles on this wikipedia?! This is serious miss, i recommend that main admins on this wiki see this and compare. I can claim that is Serbia Bosnian land becuaze it has Bosniak population, it is the same with medival Bosnia, Serbs populated some areas of Bosnia and so you call it Serbian land. You realy have, and most of you, problem with that Serb thing. Calm down, live.

So, you agree that Serbs populated some areas of Bosnia during this time, right? The preface part mention that term "Serbian lands" does not mean exclusivelly Serbian lands, but that some of these lands were also populated by other non-Serbs peoples. In the case of Bosnia, numerous historical sources mention that Serbs were dominant ethnic group in Bosnia during this time. It might be only one of the historical views about this issue, but the opposite opinion that Serbs were not dominant ethnic group in Bosnia in this time is also nothing more than a view. PANONIAN (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and accuracy problems continue...

The whole notion of "Serbian Lands" or "Historical Serbian Lands" is deeply POV. That most Serbs have trouble understanding that played not a small part in the recent wars of Serbs with their neighbours. So, a Totallydisputed tag. --Elephantus 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That most Serbs have trouble understanding that played not a small part in the recent wars of Serbs with their neighbours.
Sorry to object, Eleph, but could you rephrase this last sentence. I really didn't get it.
Additionally, the article is POV... but only in a plain way if you look at it. This is why a totallydisputed tag is in the utmost possibilities completly unappropriate in this situation. You should put a POV tag instead. And please, sincerely please, do not just open cans of worms by Tagging everywhere, this is your n-th Tag (this is a personal advice to you, rather than being connected to this factual article in question).
Try to solve disputes; not create them. All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For Elephantus: you still did not explained WHY this article is POV. I do not want to hear anything about recent wars here. If you are frustrated with recent wars, I am not, so please explain why this article is POV from the scientific point of view or I will remove the tag until you explain this. PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I explained why this article is POV. I'm sorry if you can't understand it, but there appears to be little I can do about it. --Elephantus 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh, as you wish, Elephantus. Sometimes, you're more mysterious than Chief Blackthorn. :))) Whatever, I really have no time to deal with this kind of nonsence. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have time, and until Elephantus EXPLAIN I will remove the tag. PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do not deny that Serbs have lived, still live and will live in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What I am disputing is the name of the article itself as it, is clearly POV attributing all these regions as belonging to Serbs. Infact there is a sentance in the introduction that is nothing more than a weasel statement trying to diffuse obvious POV nature of this article

"It should be also noted that the term "Serbian lands" does not mean exclusivelly Serbian lands, since many of the mentioned areas were also inhabited by other non-Serb ethnic groups."

Article should be renamed to maybe "Historical teritorial distribution of Serbs" or some simpler alternative to that. Or article should only state regions that are undisputably, historically Serb (if there are any). Totally disputed for now. Possibly redirect or deletion. --Dado 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that you do not understand the nature of this article; it does not mention lands that ARE Serb, but that WERE Serb during the history. It simply does not have political but only historical aspect. We can change the title of the article into something else, but then propose some better new title of the article which will reflect its nature. It is not quite about territorial distribution of Serbs, but about political entities that were inhabited or ruled by Serbs during the history. In the case of Bosnia, Bosnian king Tvrtko had a title "king of the Serbs" and Stefan Vukčić was a "herzeg of Saint Sava". PANONIAN (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The original name implied that all these lands ARE Serb as it was a proper adjective and highly POV. I don't even want to get into discussion about Bosnia king Tvrtko as you know it well the issue is at least heavily disputed. The changed name is an improvement but it creates ambiguity which lands were inhabited and which were ruled by Serbs. But I have no better suggestion so this is OK.--Dado 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've found a very strange thing. When I say that this is a Wooden pencil, I mean that it's made of wood; but naturally, there are some other components in it, what about the colour around it, or the composition of the material used to write (varying from Pencil to Pencil).

But now I say: This is a German cuisine-meal. But is it a part of the Hungarian cuisine? Sure it is! So why then the addition of an adverb adds the strange opinion that the matter in subject, that it is exclusivly how it is described by its corresponding adverb? That's why my point - it can't be interpreted that way.

Sincerely. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting ridiculous..

... as is the article's name. I suggest that you just delete the article if you just want lead pointless and meaningless arguements like can be seen if you read this talk page.

I meant this sincerely. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just want to see would anybody try to object to this name. The essence is important, not the name... PANONIAN (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, "during the history" is awful grammar. Ashibaka tock 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

Why is Macedonia on the list? --PaxEquilibrium 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbs are a minority there...--estavisti 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

...but there are more Serbs in the United States.. or Croatia. It seems odd - Macedonia is mentioned, but not Croatia; where Serbs are a constitutionally recognized national minority. --PaxEquilibrium 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Serbs in Croatia are recognized as minority, while Macedonian constitution say that Macedonia is state of several peoples that live there including Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually - "Serb" is not mentioned at all in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia at all. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think you are right. I am not 100% sure, but I think that Macedonian constitution mention several peoples as "state nations" including Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Roma, Vlachs, etc... PANONIAN (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've asked Macedonian users, checked the Macedonian encyclopedia - and it seems that Serbs are indeed mentioned. However, it appears that Serbs were removed from the Constitution in the meantime. I read the Constitution on the web (official site) - and its the very same, just without the mention of Serbs (my Original Research is that the 1991 Constitution contained the Serbs, but ever since the slight rewrite of 1995, it no longer contains them). --PaxEquilibrium 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the 1991 constitution seems to have been revised in 1995 or something like that, I can't confirm (perhaps 1992?). Serbs were removed from the status of Constitutional peoples. However, I know see rumors that they were re-included just recently... spinnin' around to nowhere... --PaxEquilibrium 13:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs were added to Macedonian constitution recently after conflict between Macedonians and Albanians. The peace deal between the two included part that Albanians should be included into constitution, so the Macedonian government included not only Albanians, but all other minorities. PANONIAN (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The official page of the Constitution includes all nations but Serbs (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romas, Vlachs). --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That must be mistake because number of Serbs is larger than for example number of Vlachs and I also heard that Serbs are included, so you should check few other sources about this. PANONIAN (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have checked, many Macedonian official sources, and neither of them includes Serbs (but strangely, it includes Romas - which haven't been there according to the old version). It appears that they replaced the Serbs with Romas. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Title's very wrong. I'm thinking of nominatin' this article for deletion. --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY is it "very wrong"? It's an interesting and informative article. --Еstavisti 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Titles of articles must be obvious and wide-known things. For example, you think of a single word and then this article will barge onto your mind. Not many notable things have 0 Google search results. And if this' the only possible title, then this article fails in notability, in which case - it's a damn good candidate for deletion. --PaxEquilibrium 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument holds no water. What about the dozens of articles like the List of book titles taken from literature, that get no hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors? [1] There are dozens of these articles, and they are perfectly acceptable. If you want this deleted, you need another, substantial reason.--Еstavisti 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that YOU started this article, so you wanting it deleted makes me suspect the HRE/PE account has been hijacked again.--Еstavisti 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just a plain list; this has gone far from it. Do you wanna bet most people are going to vote for its deletion? I'll nominate it, if you want to see for yourself... or simply rename it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a list to me...--Еstavisti 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened with you HRE? I hope that you know what problems we had with old title and how many discussions we needed until we reached this compromise solutions and now you want to move us back to zero. Give us ONE good reason for name change or ONE good reason for deletion. PANONIAN (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Division of the article

I propose a division of the text into two articles, in which one would contain a list of lands that were historically ruled by Serbs, and another with a list of lands inhabited by Serbs. Reasoning:

  • The line between "inhabited" and "ruled by" is severely blurred, even more so by the fact that the pages Serbian lands and Serb lands redirect to this page. I also do not know why Hungary, Romania and Albania were not mentioned before, as Serbs are a recognised national minority in those countries. Military frontier, Habsburg Serbia, New Serbia and Slavo-Serbia were inhabited by Serbs, but they were ruled by foreign emperors - yet they are listed along with entities that were most clearly Serbian. This all can be, and is misleading.
  • The title suggests a list of lands inhabited by Serbs. Creating a new article devoted to that, would allow more information on this topic. For example, at least 40,000 Serbs live in Canada, and only about 7,350 in Hungary. I see no reason why Hungary should be on the list, and not Canada as well.

Rosier 11:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

I am interested what/who were the sources for this Science fiction:Ilija Garašanin ,Vaso Čubrilović ... Vojvoda ???

Or a certain guy who is now six feet under Požarevac ???? --Anto (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Was findest du wrong with the articel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.201.154 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


I guess that we could here make a similar article about Croats . We can call it Political entities inhabited or ruled by Croats .


and put map like this one:


--Anto 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

I am really interested to hear what is not clear in this:

.."200,000 Serbs, who account for roughly 30% of the Montenegrin population, now have minority status." [2] or this on Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin language: "Oko 200.000 Srba, koji su do juče u Crnoj Gori bili konstitutivan narod, danas su se u ovoj državi probudili kao nacionalna manjina" [3] --Rjecina (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at this I'm gonna have to agree with the newbie. The reason why this "minority" thing is being propagated is because the pro-Serb parties (mostly the Serb People's Party) constantly point out that "...a third has become a minority in a country in which there is no majority..." or "...a people that created this country has become a minority..." mostly because of silly and totally inapplicable SNS's demands make Montenegro like Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Montenegrin and Serb members that would have veto power between each other.
To solve this issue we have got to observe this from both a lawyer's point of view, and a non-legal one as well:
In the preamble of the new Constitution of Montenegro, when it defines the state of Montenegro, it says: "Montenegro is a civic, democratic, ecological and a state of social justice, based on the Reign of Law in which the members of peoples and national minorities live as free and equal citizens: Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniacs, Albanians, Muslims, Croats and others, dedicated to a democratic and civic Montenegro".
Therefore, aside from just naming the peoples that live in the country, which was a request of the Liberal Party of Montenegro, there is no greater change in the civic character of the country. And considering the status that was in act so far, this could be freely interpreted as if "nations" refers to Montenegrins and Serbs (who together form over 75% of the country's population, thus, a majority), while others as national minorities. Therefore, the "recognized people and official language" seems to be appropriate, especially because before it just stood "official language". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)