Talk:Serbs/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Serbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Can someone protect the page image?

User Pokrajac continues to revert the Srbs3.JPG image to his own, regardless of the fact that his received no votes.

I agree whit protection whitout picture of Serbs because none of these pictures have majority. --M. Pokrajac 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting for picture of Serbs

Support for Picture 1

This picture was generated after long discussion in which participated admins of sr: Wikipedia, if there is any problem, contact sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 22:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC) File:Srbi.jpg

Can you consider making it more attractive? And getting rid of the basketball player? 72.144.139.173 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this is definitive propose of Serbian Wikipedia. You can ask questions on sr: Wiki village pump! --M. Pokrajac 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Support for Picture 2

File:SerbsI.JPG

I think that the pic should include Milutin Milanković. He was a world-famous scientist. Also, can anyone do a little research on the number on Serbs in USA? It is greatly underestimated. And the top number of Serbs (8.5 - 9.5) is now over 10 million. HolyRomanEmperor 22:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed reference

Why was the following reference removed? Barring explanation, I believe it should be restored.

Federal Statistical Office Germany: Foreign population on 31.12.2004 by country of origin

-- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I said above, some time ago: now that we have three completely independent sources, one of them heavily anti-Serbian, which give 700,000 number, I believe that we may use that number as the only one, especially given that the other source only gives number of people from SCG (not counting their descendants etc.) and it doesn't say which period it covers. No one commented for a while, so I did it. Nikola 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Croat apologism

The following wording appears to me to be Croat apologism:

About 200.000 Serbs left Croatia during the "Operation Storm" (a military operation in which Croatia retrieved its occupied territories ("Republic of Serbian Krajina")) in 1995, although they were invited by Croatian authorities to stay in their homes. Some acts of revenge happened though, and many Serbian politicians tried to present this as a proof of ethnic cleansing.

-- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed other then facts. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on voted image of Serbs

User Antidote permanently doing vandalism on voted image of Serbs. He is changing picture unacceptable. Please, can someone stop this fulish editing of user Antidote? --M. Pokrajac 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to take this up with this discussion page as well as the village pump, and neither have given me a response. Considering, I have been ignored and have the support of two other members, there was no other way to gain attention. Antidote 00:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You got attention on this page. --M. Pokrajac 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone address my request to remove or replace Divac.

Sorry, but we have voted image here, and you cant change it! If you want attention, you must do something else. Changing voted image is just vandalism... --M. Pokrajac 14:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Do I not recall your changing the image beforehand that was voted on by majority? (given the majority was three people). I was fair and allowed a revote. In this case you should take into account differing views just as I did. All I ask is to get rid of one of the images, not all. Just one. 72.144.172.214 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a point: having a vote does not determine consensus. En operates on consensus; I conclude from the above discussion that there is no consensus on the appropriate image to use, either here or on List of Serbs. Edits changing the image on either of these articles are not, in any case, vandalism, unless the image is one clearly inappropriate to the article (such as a collection of Frenchmen, or perhaps a picture of a toilet paper holder). Even if there were consensus, such edits would not be vandalism as we define it on enwiki. Please do not make such accusations of vandalism again. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Would someone finally clean up this page instead of permanently adding to it? It's 42 kB now and raising, and contains a lot of noise.

Most of the Name section is pure babbling. At most, 2-3 sentences could be devoted to it. Who cares whether it is related with Sorbs and why is it so important? There's 16,000 toponyms, most of which are vukojebine that don't have an article yet. I'm not saying they should not have an article, but why are they so important to be linked from this page?
- I can't agree. Names are important, origin unknown so all serious theories should be listed, relation with Sorbs oftenly mentioned without clear resolution. Where would you put a list of wolf breeding grounds named after Serbs if not in this article? Nikola
  - Theories are OK. The world map on placenames is totally useless. I don't think that the complete list of wolf breeding grounds, eh, should be mentioned anywhere; they will ultimatively be linked as placenames in X, X = {Serbia, Okruzi, Croatia, wherever}. Origin of Serbs article already offers a separate list of placenames although mostly outside of Balkans. In this article, the list is IMO pure noise — why should various WBG's have their place on one of central articles about Serbian culture just because of its name? Duja 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Because it's Serbian culture that named them after itself? There's a list of places named after kos at Kosovo (disambiguation) so why not this ;) I'll try to move them into one line first, and if that doesn't suffice maybe they could be moved to Serbian Culture or somewhere... Nikola 10:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Rather, they named itself after Serbian culture :-). I'd draw a parallel (which is going to make your hair rise) with Titov Drvar, Titograd, Titovo Uzice...
        I'd point out that there is List of places named after Tito :) Most of them aren't wolf breeding grounds however, but still... Nikola 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The history should be either moved to History of Serbs or, better, shortened and linked with History of Serbia where appropriate. Duja 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- History of Serbs is not the same as history of Serbia. I agree with your first suggestion. History should be moved to History of Serbs and here sufficiently trimmed. Nikola
  - Do i hear "volunteer"? ;;) Duja 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes! Let's split the work: I will create the article, you trim the history here :) Nikola
      - Fair enough. Deal? Duja 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        I'd do it already, but Wikipedia was unaccessible... Nikola 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Pannonian, I think you went too far with your maps. I like your maps and your edits in general, but I think they make this article too heavyweight without real rationale. Most of them, AFAIK, already appear elsewhere, in more suitable articles. Duja 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I take that this refers to the maps at the end. If we would have an and a political map covering entire exYU I believe that would be enough. Nikola
  - I think I saw it somewhere, IIRC by Pannonian. I'm surprised he didn't reply so far. Duja 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Does "References on Ancient..." section have to be that long? I appreciate someone's effort to collect it, but it 's IMO better suited for Wikimedia or like.
- For the start, we might move it to Origin of Serbs. Nikola
  - That article, however, needs even more work than this one :-). It devotes 90% of the space to various speculative theories and only 10% to widely accepted scientific data (no matter how scarce the sources are).
    - One page at a time... Nikola
- Additionally, we could shorten "Customs" section if we would make an article on, say, Serbian Christmas and move several paragraphs to it. Nikola
  - What about this? What would be appropriate title of the article? Nikola 10:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Maybe later. In the current state, its size is more or less acceptable. Duja 13:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      - I'd like to write a paragraph about daća, so have that in mind. Nikola 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- And then, we could feature the article! :) Nikola 08:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I can, of course, put up my sleeves and do it myself, but I'd like to hear few opinions first (plus, muko moja pređi na drugoga is not so bad way of getting the job done :-) ).Duja 13:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that article would be better with maps, but if you want to remove some of them, ok. Maps you should not remove are: Serbs in Yugoslavia, Serbs in Serbia, Serbs in Montenegro, and Serbs in Bosnia in 1998. I still think that article is better with all maps included, but different people have different opinions... PANONIAN (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you just numbered 4 out of 9. I meant to leave only Serbs in Yugoslavia, which covers them all; other maps are already included elsewhere, in more appropriate articles. Duja 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree, but the problem is that that map is not current. F.E., there are no Serbs in Montenegro. If it would, it could replace Serbs in Serbia, Serbs in Montenegro, and Serbs in Bosnia maps. Nikola 10:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I'd rather have one big outdated (like current one) than lots of small ones. We could add a disclaimer about change of situation (add a link e.g. to Montenegrins, mention the exodus from Croatia and Kosovo) as a compromise. I think that the current map (dated 1981) gives a fair outline of geographical placement; change in details (sic!) can be explained in text. Duja

I did a partial cleanup of the page (History section still unchanged) to present my idea how it should look like. Mostly, I commented out the material from the page rather than moving it elsewhere (Origin of Serbs, History of Serbs) so that it's more easily available when those articles are updated. Duja 14:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I returned 3 ethnic maps to the article. Four ethnic maps in the article is not a big number of maps and 1981 map is out of date now. I would rather delete that one than the other 3, which show the current situation. As for the other things, rather try to move unwanted content to some subarticle than to simply delete it. For example, you deleted map showing Srb placenames, but you could move this map to the Origin of Serbs article instead to just delete it. Everything could be moved somewhere insted to be just deleted. PANONIAN (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As Nikola said, "one article at a time" :-). I do mean to move the contents, but I don't have time right now. The text is commented out rather than deleted so it's readily available for moving when the time comes. Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of Srb placenames map. All it shows is where Serbia is. Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, The Image "Srbi u jugoslaviji.jpg" is scheduled for deletion because of lack of copyright info. Can you do something about it? Duja 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You should ask the person who uploaded that image to put some image tag on it. PANONIAN (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I request that the ethnographic picture of Serbs in Croatia must be put into this article. It is one of the more important pictures. HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)