Talk:Serbianisation

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

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

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

message: There are no sources given that use this term, so it seems to be a neologism.  Can someone please find sources for this article?  Thank you. // Laughing Man 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Emir Kusturica is a Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) and that he auto-declares himself as a Serb. An example of Serbization process.Adrian (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See references [1] and [2] for a collection of about 100 original sources, published in a number of countries that describe 'Serbian assimilation', 'Serbian oppression', 'Serbianization' (you can use authomatic search for these terms in the long documents) of the Bulgarian ethnicity in Macedonia. You are welcome. Lantonov 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources? 

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

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

message: First, Panonian I must remind you of your words about culture and monasteries. What you mean these leveled churches did not belong to the culture of the region? And they forcible disappearing is a part of a forcible cultural changing namely Serbianisation. Please show me just one Orthodox church in Vojvodina which was razed by COMMUNISTS. --Bendeguz 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIC, the Serbian Orthodox Church is the religious organization that suffered the most during the existence of Communist Yugoslavia (I can't claim for Vojvodina precisely, since I do not know much 'bout it). However, I must agree with PANONIAN - it doesn't have much to do with cultural assimilation at all. You're forgetting that this article deals with cultural assimilation of non-Serbs into Serbs. For example, the SOC monastery of Krupa was ransacked by Croatian paramilitaries during Operation Storm in 1995, however that is no way "Croatization". --PaxEquilibrium 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Why ? Rjecina 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: there is no sources for serbianisation of romanians. just conclusion that they are serbianized because the smaller number of them (wich is in fact 34,576 not 4,157) and for that they cold be many other explanations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.172.182 (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is about the serbinisation of Romanians(Vlachs) in central Serbia (Timocka Krajna/Valea Timocului) not in Vojvodina. Adrian (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanians in serbia 

message: It's very misleading to put the "Albanisation" section in to this article??? 'cause it takes away the focus from the main article...In my opinion the hole section of Deserbianisation should be removed 'cause it's in a huge controversy with the title of this article and if I don't receive any response till the end of this week the fore mentioned part will be  removed because it can also be found on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanisation and that's a duplicity. User:yllbardh 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have just remove the paragraph. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Albanization is clearly under the De-Serbisation section. --Jebacz (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, its a WP:FORK and WP:UNDUE via WP:OR. For example how could there be a deserbianisation of a particular group of people and so on if they were not Serbianised in the first place? The "de" suffix in the word connotes a removal or reversal and in this instance coupled with the word of the process "serbianisation" would infer a reversal and undoing of this transformative process. Unlike with this article, on the Albanianisation page there is a section called De-albanianisation and that deals with actual examples of when there was Albanianisation and then it was reversed (as cited in sources). Other issues with the De-Serbianisation section is that all the sources cited to that part in no way refer, cite or discuss (de)serbianisation, so its original research on the part of editors who placed it here. The section should go as a article already exists on Albanianisation and has that exact same content and sources.Resnjari (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we talking about? Serbianisation or Albanisation??? 

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

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

message: Pre-Turkish Serbian state and its institutions had no time to »serbicize« Vlachs, since it soon fell under the Turkish dominance; that process was not finished until the 19th century.  Furthermore, the process of serbization, of Vlachs has been accomplished through the Serbian Orthodox Church in Dalmatia and the Military Frontiers (Vojna Krajina), i. e., in the territories of the Croatian Kingdom, together with Bosnia, where Vlachs found their final domicil. The Church had the most decisive role in the serbization process of Vlachs in the initial and middle phases; in the final phase, the most significant role was played by the newspaper Srbobran in the 80's and 90's of the 19th century. On the basis of the preceding analysis, the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nationhttps://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=307683 The Croatian historian talks about Serbization of Serbs in Croatia while the article talks about Serbization so I see no reason to erase this conclusion of the Croatian historian from the article.Mikola22 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is reason of someone for erasing  conclusion of Croatian historian who speaks about Serbianisation  "Ustaše ideology has no place here and neither does pseudo-science. Just to quote this insane fascist entry - the author concludes that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation."Fact that in Croatia  was a Serbianization writes in his book "Mirko Valentić ; Institute of Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, 1992." in which he give examples that talks about the facts which led to Serbianisation of Orthodox population in Croatia and Bosnia. No one has refute his book or conclusions. Therefore Croatian historian and his book are relevant evidence for Wikipedia and especially for this article because  Croatian historian talks about Serbianisation. If someone does not like what that has to do with that book and the source which is the basis and relevant evidence when it comes to Serbianization in Croatia i.e. in Austro-Hungarian Empire.Mikola22 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the writings by ex Yugoslav authors and historians from the 90s is largely biased. Take the imaginary talk of Orthodox Croats and other ideas promoted by balkan Nazis on another article, thank you. If I disagree that does not mean that you should push your agenda further. That is why we have the talk page. This goes for IP editors and registered editors as well. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you don't know the realistic history. If in 70 or 80% of Croatia there is no mentione of Serbs and today in that area live Serbs what would be your conclusion? Therefore the same as his conclusion, which means that Croatian historian is telling irrefutable facts. Which agenda?  I have said a hundred times, in Croatia for 70% of the territory there is no mention of any Serbians (or in three documents maybe five from hundreds that mentione Vlachs). There exist book with 400 pages that talks about Vlachs in Croatia, for the Serbs book would probably be with 10 pages if it were based on original historical documents. Do you now understand what this is all about? In Yugoslavia it couldn't been written but in  Croatia after the breakup of Yugoslavia it could be written and it is written. If  conclusions of that historians cannot be challenged I don't know what that says about the book itself? Well, I suppose that it says it's accurat and true which is relevant evidence for a Wikipedia article.Mikola22 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were no Serbs in Croatia, then why did you killed so many during the WW2? Your theories and attemps to deserbinaze people of Krajina are very nacionalistic and misleading and yet almost every event in history in last 100 years proves that there were Serbs that Croats tried to drive away  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.145.50 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbisation of Serbs in Croatia 

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