Talk:Serbia/Archive 3

message: I realize Serbia is a republic and still in a state union with CG. However, isn't it also a country (just one that is in a state union with another country)?Osli73 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be moot in two days, I heard Montenegro will declare independence this Saturday.--estavisti 10:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia - country or republic? 

message: It has been put in for the following reasons:
#Sick of seeing the old one.
#Serbia and Montenegro have functioned as independent states for several years, and had de facto separate foreign policies (two track EU negotiations). The Netherlands Antilles are considered worthy of a country infobox, althouh they are "an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands". So Serbia (and Montenegro) having the country infobox should be OK. After all, the existence of the State Union (only another 2 days anyway) implies the members are states.
That's it. --estavisti 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the date - at the earliest we should be dating it from today (June 3) - but not a moment before Montenegro makes its declaration, or maybe from next week when Serbia formally declares independence.  May 21 is simply not appropriate.  As regards to 'state', although I'm not going to remove the country infobox, I note that the members of the United States are called that as well.  Morwen - Talk 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox 

message: ::This is more widely discussed on: Talk:Montenegro/Archive_1#Now_we.27ll_have_to_change_all_the_maps_that_dont_include_the_border_between_Serbia_and_Montenegro.--Greasysteve13 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Groan! This will take years. I think that every EU country, some further east and south, the EU and NATO maps and all the world maps will need to be changed.--Zhengfu 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then more fun if/when Kosovo becomes independent! ;) BovineBeast 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just make a dotted line around ex-Yugoslavia and call it "Obscure Bunch of Balkan Countries", and change the map in 20 years' time when they've calmed down...HJV 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now we'll have to change all the maps that dont include the border between Serbia and Montenegro 

message: I removed the "unofficial" moto of "Samo sloga srbina spasava". I think we were there before; the country does not have an official moto, period — this one is too controversial to be universaly accepted, even among Serbs themselves, let alone numerous minorities. At best, it could be mentioned as motto of Serbs, but can anyone recall a government official which uttered those words publicly? That goes in the same basket to Three-finger salute (Serbian). Duja 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents: Although "Samo sloga Srbina spasava" is widely used, it's not really what we are looking for. It's not on national amblems, nor is it mentioned in any documents etc. A solid national motto is probably American e pluribus unum or French liberté, égalité, fraternité. What I propose is that we use: Motto: no official one with a footnote. Otherwise, SSSS is as official as "smrt fašizmu" or "ajmo, ajde, svi u napad". --dcabrilo 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This CCCC on shield, my friend, is not SSSS :). It is four ocilo's (sr. ocilo or ognjic). Please read this (SR) document where you will find explanation of Serbian Coat of Arms. Also, you can read article about Serbian CoA here. Regards, --Pockey 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, "Само слога Србина спасава" is kind of backronym – the original coat of arms certainly wasn't made with that idea in mind. Duja 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samo sloga srbina spasava 

message: I changed of the first sentence from landlocked republic to country in recognition that Serbia was declared independent today but that was reverted by another editor.
I reverted back to country for two reasons.
1. the word country and not a description of the government form is used in most country article introductions. The name Republic of Serbia is also listed at the very start anyway.
2. Although some country articles - a minority - do used forms like republic in the case of Serbia it is better to use country now to clearly distinguish between the current status as an independent country and the former status a republic in Yugoslavia and later Serbia-Montenegro. I imagine this is the reason why non of the other articles on former Yugoslav countries use the word republic instead of country.
Country is just the clearer term and is the most widely used in such articles. Republic has had too many other meanings (besides fully sovreign republic) in Serbia's recent history to be a good alternative for simply country. 
If anyone objects and prefers republic please state explain why.--Westee 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic changed to country 

message: I think this would be good / useful to add a section on the legalities around the dissolution of SCG and to what extent Serbia will be the successor state of SCG. Would anyone be ready to do it? Do you have any good links/sources for this?
My understanding was that Serbia will be the successor state to SCG: Serbia will inherit SCGs seat at the UN, Serbia will inherit progress made in talks with the EU, Serbia will inherit all intl. agreements and treaties, Serbia will, until an agreement has been arrived at, inherit SCGs national debt and foreign assets (such as embassies and the like). However, I don't have any good sources/links for this.
Osli73 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC says basically the same thing . --Delirium 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Debt was already divided some time ago - when Montenegro economic and monetary affarirs were separated from Serbian such. The SiM union has only 5 ministeries - military, foreign, human and minority rights, internal&external economic. The last two were only assisting dublicate institutions in the republics themselfs (both were negotiating separate WTO memberships, EU uses twin-track approch in most aspects of SAA negotiations). So the dissolution will mean the following: transfering human rights to a respective institutions in both republics; dividing up military - depending on territorial location (of assets) and nationality (of soldiers) - this process was already advanced (eg. practicaly Montenegrins serving in Montenegro, Serbs - in Serbia); establishing of Foreign Affairs ministeries in both republics (it looks like Montenegro already has one) and dividing SiM property abroad (mostly diplomatic missions) - most probably property will be divided in the same ratio as debt before that was similar to the population ratio (like 6%:94%). Anyway a better place for such text is the Serbia and Montenegro article, not here... 212.36.8.100 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor state - new section on technicalities 

message: Currently there are two dates - Ottoman and SiM dissolution. OK. But should it be "Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro" or "Succession of Serbia and Montenegro" or something like "Dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro (successor state)"? 212.36.8.100 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence date 

message: What is the significance of including "landlocked" in the introduction? This is already very clear from the map and only makes the text sound odd? I move to take it out. Anyone against?
Osli73 13:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can be found on Hungary Slovakia etc. --Telex 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see how is this so essentialy pertaining to the very definition of the country, i.e. the opening sentence. Its presence elsewhere is a sort of argument indeed, but having a bad thing elsewhere is also not a reason for spreading it further. Duja 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify: I wanted to say what you said in your second sentence -- it is not a defining characteristics. OTOH, atricles on Hungary, Slovakia, etc. do have that in the very first sentence. The "bad thing" I referred to was the, in my opinion, bad style which is getting copied over and over across articles. Why aren't there also important attributes like "mountainous", "industrialized", "small", "poor", "democratic" as well? Why is only "landlocked" so big deal? Duja 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why landlocked? 

message: Should we remove current event tag? The referendum and independence proclamations are over, nothing new will not happen here, so why the tag is still here? PANONIAN (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current event?

message: Till the discussion in Wien is not over Kosovo is not part of Serbia (See:Rez. 1244 there is no paragraf in wicht s standing "Serbia", please dont speculete). We dont need no ropagander here. The serbs are saing that Kosovo is part of Serbia, the Kosovars are saying thate Kosovo is indepedent. Beacose of hate this article is not NEUTRAL The only documents wich is prufing thate are the Serbian documents. --Hipi Zhdripi 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are trying to point out that Belgrade has no real jurisdiction over Kosova; that is correct and this can imply that it is not part of Serbia. But we have to follow international convention as layed out in the UN and as such, Kosova/o is part of Serbia until either Belgrade cuts itself off or the international community recognises an independent Kosova. Until then, we can still see clearly that it is separate from Serbia, but we have to respect international convention. Politis 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. Kosova, Serbia and Wjvodina are sepereted member of the Yugoslavia and no one of them is recodnezed alls state. The RS Serbia was not recodnezed (Srbia is onl a region in RS Serbia withaot status). Kosova and Wojvodina has veto right in Yugoslavia but not Serbia. See the Yugoslavian constition. The region of Serbia has oly veto in RS Serbia but not in Yugosllavia. This region it was "puffer zone" betwen Vojvodina and Kosovo.--Hipi Zhdripi 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You should wait the end of negotiations in Wiena. I think that this has been allready discussed here. Kosovo is part of Serbia still, and you can see that on all these maps on every article. --Pockey 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you put relevant souce for this claim about neogotiations? --Pockey 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, but negotiations are not finished still. It is not important where they are. --Pockey 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No this is somthing ells. In this meeteng Kosovo is going to regotnez Serbia als state, and Srbia is going to regodneze Kosovo alls state. After thate the UN members are going to regotnez both states (I dont kwno what is hapen with Wojvodina).--Hipi Zhdripi 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think that Wojvodina should be sovereign sate soon as posible.  Momentary, there are some liberty armies who wants to release poor people from Serbian tyranny. --Pockey 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So what? Last month in Belgrade was bomb explosion. --Pockey 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And when such solution will be proclaimed? Do you have some link about that? PANONIAN (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And how you know for this then? :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I do not listen Radio RTK, so do you have some Internet source for your claims? PANONIAN (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo is not part of Serbia 

message: I know that this is too early to talk about, but the article reads the Serbia "remain[s] the successor state to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro". So does that mean that by transitivity, Serbia is also the successor state to Yugoslavia (since before, Serbia and Montenegro is regarded as the successor state of Yugoslavia)? Because if such is the case, then the statistics related to the international participation of Yugoslavia (i.e. medals won in Olympics, beauty pageants won, number of terms and positions held in international bodies like UN) will now be attributed to Serbia, as may be referred to in footnotes (like Russia to USSR).Joey80 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Yugoslavia do you refer to? Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later renamed to Serbia and Montenegro) was not the (sole) successor state of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—although it claimed to be for a while. That claim, however, was denied by United Nations and many other international organizations (European Council e.g.), and FRY had to reapply for membership in several of them. Thus, the rest of your question lies on a wrong premise. Some lesser international organizations (FIFA, notably, as far as I can tell, I'm not sure about MOC) did accept succession and thus counted the old SFRY medals etc. on FRY's account. Duja 07:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor state to Yugoslavia 

message: In the Wikipedia article on Montenegro, that country is claimed to be the newest country in the world. Montenegro declared independence on June 3 - but Serbia declared independence two days later, on June 5. Does that imply that the Republic of Serbia (and not the Republic of Montenegro) is the newest country in the world? Or do these two countries share the title? Or is Montenegro the newest country in the world - since Serbia is the sole sucessor state to Yugoslavia/SCG?
: In my opinion we can't say that Serbia is the newest country. They were the leading force of the old Yugoslavia so Montenegro is the newest country in the world. Deliogul 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Newest" country?

message: This newly added map of the cities hidding the text behind it (at least on Opera browser). Can somebody correct that? PANONIAN (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected that myself. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of cities

message: I added fact tags to "occupying forces committed atrocities against Serbs and Jews" because it's not well-known, and should therefore be cited.  The was the same reason I tagged "supported the army" later on. MSJapan 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

message: Why are many of the economy figures (GDP, etc.) taken from the factbook page on Serbia and Montenegro? This is certainly inaccurate. -- ran (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This data is fine for now until data is available for the republic of Serbia as a country alone.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But the data is patently wrong. It is given as that of Serbia and Montenegro. The article does not even mention that the data applies to Serbia and Montenegro, it just gives them as the data for Serbia. -- ran (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy data 

message: Ukrainian is not official language in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. No matter what some (uninformed) journalist wrote in that external link, here you can see official web site of the government of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina: http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/Engleski/vojvodina.htm Quote: "The Statute of AP Vojvodina stipilates that the official languages, besides Serbian, are Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian." Ukrainian is not mentioned, thus, not official. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official status 

message: Hi people,
A better place for this would be WP:SER, but as I'm not sure about its activity.
Currently there's no consistent infobox for Serbian towns and cities and have uploaded maps of all/most Serbian municipalities into :commons:Category:Maps of Serbian municipalities and merged the look of  (used in some articles) into . However, before attaching the template to the articles, I'd like to have an agreement in advance about its contents—once you change the contents of the infobox, a whole lot of articles would have to be updated. After an agreement has been reached, we should put up our sleeves and attach it to appropriate articles. 
So, for all interested: please visit Template talk:Infobox Serbia and suggest improvements. Duja 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Infobox Serbia 

message: I removed several images of Đerdap and others on which we can see mountains and waters in Serbia. Those pics must be on articles about nature or flora and fauna of Serbia. Here was a lot of saints. I left only one because this article is not about Serbian Orthodox Church, but Serbia. We should see other articles about European countries. They are whitout many pictures and galleries. --Pockey 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluity of images 

message: I just started regional Serbian Wikipedians' notice board, which is a place where questions and problems about articles related to Serbia and Serbs should be discussed. So, if anybody have problems with some articles or need help about something, it is right place to discuss it. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Serbian_Wikipedians'_notice_board PANONIAN (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Wikipedians' notice board 

message: In the part of article about demographics in Serbia, most of text is about demographics of Serbian subdivisions. Isn't that wrong, because subdivisions have its own articles. Ie, there is ethnic composition of province of Vojvodina, but not one of Serbia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.123.18 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On demographics 

message: I have noticed paradox on list of external links. There are two links who are "most visited sites in Serbia". According to Alexa.com, b92.net is the most visited web site in Serbia. But  does not think like that, and he is putting krstarica.com like most visited site. So, can anybody tell can we have two most visited sites on the list? --Pockey 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you can not say which web site is my favorite. We are not house friends. Obviously you are ignoring Alexa.com research where B92 is most visited web site in Serbia. And ok, if you want there is no need for superlatives, but do not write wrong informtions on article Krstarica about "most visited site", and confesse reality, your site is not most visited. Regards, --Pockey 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexa.com is not a research company. They just provide information collected from their toolbar installations, not using research methods like Nielsen//NetRatings. --Manp 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexa is not a research company, but Yutrend is completely irrelevant: there is no data about their research methodology. And, comparing significance of Serbian local activities to alexa.com (US company) and to yutrend.com (Serbian company) -- I can say that Yutrend researches are more disputed then Alexa data. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I put a "sources needed" tag on the area of the countrybox that says .sp is Serbia's Internet domain.  I somehow doubt that this has been declared yet, I get the impression that SP has only been proclaimed as Serbia's ISO-3166-2 code just a few days ago, and that no corresponding decision on its TLD has been made.  I also gather that .yu is still heavily in use (after all, its previous ISO 3166-2 code was CS and the .cs domain remained unused for the 3 years of its existence).  I suggest changing it to what was before, like what is on Montenegro's page, it too has just had its ISO 3166-2 code announced (ME) but the .me TLD hasn't been created yet (see the talk on the .me page, and the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" note that appears there.)  I suspect taht someone was engaging in their own crystal ball for Serbia.  (It does seem all but certain it *will* be .sp, but it hasn't been declared yet.  And after it does, I suspect .yu will still be hard to get rid of.) --Canuckguy 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did declare it, I remember hearing all about it on the RTS Newscast (Radio Television Serbia). It may not be official yet, but the decision was made - thats the difference between the Serbia and the Montenegro situation. I actually think that it would be better to leave the .yu, add one of those 1 and at the bottom write that it will soon be officially changed to .sp. --GOD OF JUSTICE 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I've read that news, .sp was only counter-proposed by ISO to Serbian proposition of .rs. It certainly isn't accepted (yet) as such, and certanly not by W3C. .yu is still the official internet domain for all practical (the .yu domain names are still being issued) and formal purposes (new TLD, if any, not officially accepted yet). Duja 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet domain

message: I've added a new article, Constitutional status of Kosovo, which discusses the various constitutions of Serbia and Yugoslavia as well as the current situation. It would be very helpful if knowledgable editors could have a look at it and add any comments to Talk:Constitutional status of Kosovo. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New article on Kosovo

message: I dident know thate Dardania (Kosoo) was so big. Now I know way Serbs hase make mytologie of Kosovo.
*Dardania with centrum in Ulpiana (the Ilirian city Ulkiana the birthplace of Justian (alb. The place of the Wolf) is near Prishtina) http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0500.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP - 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time is comming and time is going

message: Atention: The mape is not showing the teritory of Serbia but the last part of Yugoslavia in year 2006. Serbia and Vojvodina was merged to Serbian state and Kosovo is UN Protectoriate. See the last CG statemant http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/Suedosteuropa/KosovoStatement060921.pdf the statut of Kosovo is not definetet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP - 01:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atention Info Box  mape 

message: Evidence is provided here: ISO website
:Хајдук Еру  (Talk || Cont) 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO Codes 

message: I think this article is important to look at. It connected the dismantling off Yugoslavia, the bombing of Serbia by NATO, Iraq, Lebanon, the former USSR, and events in the Middle East, plus oil. All editors should take a look at it for their own personal reasons to understand one of the reason Yugoslavia fell apart and was aggresively opposed by the US and NATO.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.164.190 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article talks about the dismantling of Yugoslavia and its connections to current world events

message: I found interesting site here: http://www.cesid.org/lokalni2004/rezultati.jsp?opstina=70505 It list all municipality presidents in Serbia, so if somebody is interested to write their names into infoboxes in the articles about Serbian municipalities, he can do it now. There are too many municipalities and I do not have time to do it, but if somebody have time, it would be good that this job is done. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a productive thing to do. Almost all municipalities have local elections at different time (regular elections at the end of a mandate or premature elections if the local assembly is dismissed), and, also, municipality presidents are not elected on direct elections - they are being elected by the municipality parliament which often changes them more than once in one mandate. Also, the central government has the authority to dismiss all municipality staff and produce premature elections in that municipality. So, to be up to date, that list would have to change every month. It's much better to have a link to the official government page that always has valid data. Jovke 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Municipality presidents

message: A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in Cyrillics 

message: The Ottoman period was a defining one in the history of the country; Slavic, Byzantine, Arabic and Turkish cultures suffused.
So -- the Serbs lost their identity as Slavs, Byzantines, Arabic, and Turkish. (Suffused is a rarely seen word meaning combined in this context.)
However the majority of the Serbs managed to keep their culture and religion through the long period of Ottoman rule.
No -- they kept their identity.  I don't have stake in this, but could someone take this out, and add something that doesn't contradict itself. patsw 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in adjacent sentences 

message: I saw the request for expansion and came across a news article today referring to an European Bank for Reconstruction and Development report that stated Serbia has shown highest growth in Southeast Europe this year so added it to article.    Someone please move it the appropriate place (the table or Economy of Serbia article?) if necessary.// Laughing Man 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true. But from which state of economy is that growth? Economy is so weak that it needs A LOT bigger boost to come up to something normal soon.. Jovke 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section 

message: I really don't understand why some people are reverting the article to some previous form in which is written that:
1. Serbian language will confirmed as official on November 8th by proclaiming the new constitution. IT IS ALREADY DONE!!!!
2. Turkish is ALSO official language in Kosovo from September 2006. For those who don't know about that: http://unpo.org/article.php?id=5498 and http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060923&hn=36713
3. +382 code is not yet introduced in practice and Montenegrin Telecommunications Agency announced that when IT GETS introduced in practice, FROM THAT MOMENT six months period for using both 381 and 382 will start to expire. So, 381 will be used by Montenegro for sure till May 2007, and maybe even later.
4. U can find in many articles that .rs code WILL NOT be active till 2007 and that .yu will also be used till about 2010!!!!
213.198.226.241 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been a practice for some time for the Kosovo parliament to bring decisions which are in the contrast to UN resolution 1244. And I don't see enough needs for Turkish to become official except pleasing the Turkish government. And where did you get that data about number of Turks in Kosovo? There was never any census there after 1999. It's all rumors. So, every Kosovo parliament decision is NOT VALID until it's accepted by the UNMIK administration there. There are many decisions parliament made which were pronounced invalid by UNMIK. That means that when Turkish language appears as one of the official languages in UNMIK official document releases, it will be. Jovke 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox details 

message: I find it odd, to say the least, that the name "Zoran Djindjic" does not appear anywhere in this article or on the discussion page. I would think that the recent assasination of a prime minister is relevant to both the history and the current politics of Serbia, no? Jasontoon 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're perfectly right. But, the article is heavily lacking of many important events. For example, it nowhere says about the assasination of king of Yugoslavia, Aleksandar Karađorđević in Marseille, France, in 1934, which is much more important event. So, it lacks a lot of stuff and I will try to put in more important first, and then others. But I'm not a superhuman, so the process won't be instant. Jovke 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on History of Serbia series instead; as with other countries, the idea is that only a brief outline is presented in the main article, while details go on the more detailed history articles. Duja► 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Zoran? 

message: It's like that from September 2006 and stop writing in Infobox that those are only Albanian & Serbian !!
If you don't believe:
http://vladimirkurdistan.blogspot.com/2006/09/turkish-becomes-official-language-in.html
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060923&hn=36713
http://www.turkuaz.us/news_det.php?newsId=332&catId=32
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/CHR/ING2006/09/06x09x22.HTM
http://www.hri.org/news/turkey/anadolu/2000/00-08-05.anadolu.html
...
Need more???
213.198.222.48 13:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's moot. As I get it, it's not even official on entire territory Kosovo, but "only in the areas with significant Turkish population", which is confined to Prizren region. See also Talk:Kosovo/Archive_11#Turkish Language Official. Duja► 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish IS one of the official languages in Kosovo 

message: How come every country (like Montenegro) has its official website, an online presentation, and Serbia has none. --PaxEquilibrium 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[...] for we are the Serbs, and they are not." --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official presentation? 

message: I added a line under the history section noting the EU's suspension of Stabilization and Association Agreement talks.  It previously just mentioned the start of the talks, but not their suspension -- this looked odd to me.  The sentence added is: "These talks, however, were suspended in 2006 after the EU concluded that Serbia had not done enough to meet its obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia."  Any objections?  Envoy202 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAA suspension 

message: The history section is awful on the 90s history.  I'd propose this short summation.  What do you think?
"As Yugoslavia collapsed in the early 1990s, Serbia offered support to ethnic Serbs involved in the bloody ethnic conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia.  Serbia was a party to the 1995 Dayton Agreement that put an end to the war in Bosnia.  
In 1989 Serbia revoked the autonomy of its southern province Kosovo, which was overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian.  In response, Kosovo Albanians launched a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience with the goal of achieving independence from Serbia.  By the late 1990s a guerrilla band, the Kosovo Liberation Army, began targeting Serb security personnel.  As the conflict worsened -- and Serb reprisals grew more severe -- NATO forces conduced a 78-day bombing campaign to compel Milosevic to withdraw from Kosovo and agree to an international peacekeeping mission (See: Kosovo War).  In June 1999, Milosevic capitulated and Kosovo was placed under UN administration (UNMIK) pending a determination of its future status.  A UN-led process to determine Kosovo's future status was begun in late 2005." Envoy202 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version is better. // Laughing Man 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed that nonsense from the article, what you wrote is not much better than the above  nonsense what you wrote just as sensational ... "ethnic Serbs involved in the bloody ethinc conflicts" ..to.. "Kosovo Albanians launched non-violent campaign of civil disobdience".  // Laughing Man 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section: 90s history is laughably bad 

message: Do you believe it is really necessary (or should I say relevant at all) to have the JNA (Yugoslav Peoples' Army) internal structure from early 1990s on the front page of a country's article? I mean, why is it important for readers to know that HQ of 5th Army was in Zagreb?! Meelosh 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Down with it. The article should describe the current army, that material is for history of the JNA article. Nikola 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military 

message: According to the official article, Serbs never rebelled against Ottoman rule before 1804. Is this true or is there a factological mistake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not true. Although Serbs were in peace with Ottoman Turks at first, later they turned against the central Ottoman rule, continuously seeking independence. The first uprising against Turks took place in Banat in 1594. In order to punish the Serbs for this rebellition, Turkish Sinan-pasha (who was an Albanian by ancestry) brought the body of Saint Sava, the most important Serbian saint, to Belgrade and burnt it there. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian uprisings during Ottoman rule 

message: I removed Orthodox New Year, St. Sava and St. Vitus from the holiday list. While those days have certain historical importance, none of those was ever an official holiday (except before 1941?), so the entire section comes out as an excercise. The only hard criteria that can be used are official documents; otherwise, we might add e.g. Catholic Christmas, 29. November or 7. July as important dates for someone else. May I remind you that we don't permit original research? Duja► 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I dunno about the Orthodox New Year part... I mean, that's still celebrated around the world by a lot of Serbs (and qualifies as a day off school/work in Canada for some people). I know this article is about Serbia and not Serbs in the rest of the world, but I dunno... isn't it pretty significant even if not officially documented? (Although I'm sure it is somewhere). Stop The Lies 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dujo, honestly, I assumed all of those were national holidays, I didn't even double check when I edited. But yes, those are not _national holidays_, but religious/personal ones. If we listed them, we should list Ederlezi, all major saints, etc. Stop The Lies, Julian New Year (FYI, Orthodox New Year or something like that, although a widely accepted name, is brutally incorrect for that holiday) probably belongs to articles about Serbian culture, or more likely, about the Serbian Orthodox Church. This article (Serbia) should be more concerned about political/demographic/etc. features of the state.  --dcabrilo 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Orthodox Serbs celebrate their New Year according to the Julian Calendar, doesn't that make it the Orthodox New Year (aka: New Yr celebrated by the Orthodox)? It would be the "Orthodox New Year" no matter what date it was celebrated on, be it the Julian Calendar, or the Poopfactory calendar, because that's the date the Orthodox celebrate their New Years... It's simply a term... Personally, I do not celebrate it, but it seems a little silly to remove a date that seems pretty important to a lot of Serbs. Just my 2 cents. Stop The Lies 09:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms "Orthodox New Year" and "Serbian New Year" are used only colloquially among Serbs; well, it can't be really called "Orthodox" because not all Orthodox churches celebrate it, and OTOH it's not uniquely "Serbian". The other thing is, it's only a minor celebration in Serbian Orthodox tradition (also called "little Christmas", actually St. Basil day), and it's not even a "red letter" in the calendar. Only in the recent years it became a fashionable things to celebrate, normally in the Serbian Way(TM) (sa pevanje i s pucanje). Duja► 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how official or widely celebrated holidays are in Serbia is certainly not my area, so it's definitely your say :) Stop The Lies 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the Julian New Year, but Savindan and Vidovdan are national holidays in Serbia. They were proclaimed at the same time when Sretenje, February 15, replaced April 27 and November 29 as the national day. --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. , , , . Duja► 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays 

message: The claim that this form was used as a result of a folk etymology linking Serbians to servants seems ridiculous.  The term "Servia" was used because  "b's" and "v's"  can sound similar.  It is no different from  sometimes seeing "Duke of Alba" and sometimes "Duke of Alva".  Presumably, the folk etymology explains why Serbs took offense at this spelling variant, not why the spelling variant was used. I'm going to change it unless someone provides some explanation here. john k 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References 11-14 cover that, esp. 1911 Britanica and . Whether the etymology is folk or not is still open to some speculation, thus the word "likely" in the sentence. I don't mind making it weaker, like "presumably" or "supposedly", but I'm against removing it altogether; I could understand B/V mixup if the word were of Spanish or Greek origin, but the "folk etymology" explanation of misattributing the origin still looks more plausible. Duja► 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is deeply unclear, since it implies that the name  "Servia" came about as a result of a folk etymology associating the Serbs with servants.   That doesn't make any sense.   A folk etymology later developed to associate the name "Servia" with  "Servants", but this isn't why the term "Servia" was used rather than "Serbia".  A literary scholar writing about Arms and the Man, at any rate, is not an expert on Serbia.   The statement in EB1911 does not make the case either, it merely says that the Serbs resent it, because they feel that the usage leads to the folk etymology connecting "Servia" to Servus.   I've tried to change the wording to be more clear.  I see no source actually saying that the term "Servia" derives from that usage, as the article implied. john k 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated before (see below), the entire discussion about how Serbia was spelled in the UK at the turn of the last century seems a bit overdone. Yes, the spelled it incorrectly (probably because v and b sounded alike). However, that hasn't been the case for almost 80 years or so and very, very few of the readers are likely to be aware of or care about this. I move that we should strike the entire section as irrelevant. Cheers Osli73 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing how it gets fatter with "theories" of Iranian origin et cetera, I must confess that you have a point... Duja► 18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Servia" 

message: Since the "Serbia vs Servia" section also deals with the more central issue of the etymology of "Serbia" shouldn't the section heading be changed. An English spelling of the name some 80 years ago doesn't seem like the central issue here. Comments? Cheers Osli73 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it doesn't have anything with "etymology" either. Actually, I added that paragraph trying to put an end to a troll war, and it originally was the last sentence in the intro. Though, I guess "Name" would be more appropriate and standard wiki-wise. Duja► 12:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I guess "Origins of the name" or something like that would be better. Just thought it a bit strange to include a title about how "Serbia" was called (incorrectly) in English almost a century ago. You decide since you wrote the section. Cheers Osli73 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing "Serbia vs Servia" with "Etymology" 

message: Is it really that important that we include this in the article? Compare with other events in the nation's history, this really is a trivial matter. Compare this to the Berlin Conference; both are international agreements, but one of them has a lasting impact (recognition of independence), while the other one is about involvement in a mid-sized war. So again, is it really that relevant? If you must include this on Wiki, then it would probably be better to put it in the politics or foreign relations articles. Хајдук Еру  (Talk || Cont) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide Ruling 

message: "The occupying powers committed numerous crimes against the civilian population, especially against Serbs and Jews." 
http://www.porges.net/JewishHistoryOfYugoslavia.html might be a useful reference
In 1941 in Serbia and Banat, German troops assisted by "Volksdeutsche" ransacked Jewish shops and forced 9145 Jews out of a total prewar population of 12000 to register. 2500 adult men were sent to a camp in Belgrade, all of a total of 8000 prisoners there were executed.
Some mention of what happened to the Ethnic German (Volksdeutsche) at the end of WWII needs at least a mention. I would propose at least an added paragraph something like
"After the end of WWII, much of the ethnic German civilian population was confined and later expelled" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
Supporting info:
http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/016e-geiger.htm 'An International Symposium "SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE 1918-1995"' as a reference, itself listing supporting references.
48000 Germans died in internment and forced labor camps throughout Yugoslavia. Banat in a 1931 census listed 20.6% ethnic German i.e. 120,450 people (including 1,874 German Jews), 4% in Yugoslavia overall. 1941 ethnic German population estimates are 600,000-750,000. At the end of the war, 100,000 ethnic germans were detained in roughly 70 camps. By 1948, 55000 remained, so 90% of the German population had either been expelled or died in camps.
www.read-all-about-it.org/tito-partisanen/banat3.html 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/refugees_03.shtml
"Violence against the Volksdeutsche here was probably more relentless than in any other country." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.129.166.50 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia section-no mention of ethnic Germans 

message: Of course Serbia was not founded in 814. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as the foundation of Serbia as such. When the Serbs came to the Balkans during Emperor Iraklie's reign, they were led by an anahront, whose great grandchildren will go on to become the first named rulers of these part of the Byzantinian Empire (during the eight century), namely - the Vlastimirovic Dynasty. However, Serb regions were never quite independent and thus there was never a foundation date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.244.209.221 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   814??? 

message: Someone keeps deleting Milosevic's picture. No matter how much people hate him for making Serbia look bad or whatever, he was a very important and controversial leader in Serbia in modern times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.138.59 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who keeps deleting Milosevic's picture?! 

message: This map was drawn by somone who doesnt know History. First of all there was no Italy it was the Roman empire, There no such thing as eatern roman empire because that was the nickname given for the Bytiziane empire much later in history, there was no england at the time regarding that they were the Norman who apperared around 11 centuray. It is clear that an idiot drew this map. --Marbus2 5 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''814 ???? map so not acurate''' 

message: As indicated by my revisions to the Government and Politcs section of the article, the political situation has chance on both 8 and 11 May 2007; perhaps the article should have a current events flag in the masthead? Xenon 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent political developments 

message: "The age of mass-media: The 5th October revolution even made news on MTV." I'm not entirely sure what this means. Are all other news programs filters that lead to MTV? Does MTV only play the most important news? Since when is MTV a judge of what is important and what is not? If this is not about the importance of the event, then what does a quip about mass media have to do with this article? JHMM13 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption from Yugoslavia section

message: At the moment, two of the COAs (Novi Sad and Kragujevac) are fair use images, so can not be in the table without breaking policy.  The rest claim to be either PD or GDFL/equivalent.  So, either the table can have no images, so it's standard, or there can be a couple gaps.  Personally, I think the images add color and make it look nicer, however having open spots will look funny.  Unless someone can recreate those two, I'd support having no images, and as such, am reverting to the no-image version.  If it is decided to have the COAs (with or without those two), it would probably look nicer having them in the first column, rather than in the middle -- they just feel misplaced and distracting, breaking up the number columns like that. -Bbik 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is there really any purpose in a whole column for the municipalities?  Considering they're all "[city name] Municipality", it seems more than a little redundant.  If images are added back, perhaps they should just be added in front of the city names in the current table, rather than reverting entirely.  This way, the column headers are bold too, which makes it much easier to read at a glance. -Bbik 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we cannot have CoAs in such lists; fair use images may be used only in their respective articles. In a recent debate (regarding lists of TV series episodes, but the principle is the same) it was decided that non-free images may not be used in simiilar lists, as they have only decorative function. AFAICT, all the CoAs used should fall under fair use, so the PD/GFDL claims are false; I'll revise the images. Duja► 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities table and COAs

message: When is there going to be an HDI study?DedMed 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HDI