Talk:Serbia

Archives
Archive 1: (August 2003 - March 2006)
Archive 2: (April 2006 - May 2006)
Archive 3: (June 2006 - July 2007)

Needs to be rewritten in English

Unfortunately, there's a significant amount of not-quite-English in the text, e.g.: "For centuries shaped at cultural boundaries between East and West, a powerful medieval Kingdom, later Serbian Empire, has been born, taking up much of the Balkans."; "inconvinient"; "Scholars today agree that Serbian name did not derive from the word servus."; "As a result of internal struggle between the rival noble families, and heavy losses inflicted by the Ottomans in the epic Battle of Kosovo, the Serbian Empire has dissolved into many statelets by the beginning of the 15th century."

Ludwig X (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Banat

I see an anon ip removed any reference to the fact that part of the Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat proclaimed itself the Banat Republic, and was then partially annexed to Serbia in 1918 after Serbian troops entered the state. I havent any intention of getting into an edit/revert war with this "editor" so will not revert the material but this kind of POV whitewashing makes this a worse article. Borders were fluid after the Great War and similar actions occurred accross the Balkans and East-Central Europe - so its not unique to Serbia. Sweeping stuff like this under the rug just makes other wikipedians suspicious of articles like this in my opinion. Bigdaddy1981 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That part of the article speak about Vojvodina region that include Banat, Bačka and Srem and historically also Baranja. If you check the map, you can see that Banat Republic with capital in Timisoara was mostly located in Romanian Banat and that it did not included Bačka, Srem or Baranja. Contrary to this region of Banat, Bačka and Baranja (also known as Vojvodina) with its capital in Novi Sad included most of modern Vojvodina and is considered a predecessor of current autonomous province. Also, it is not correct that "Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat proclaimed itself the Banat Republic" because this voivodship was abolished in 1860 and Banat Republic was formed in 1918 + voivodship included Banat, Bačka and Srem, while Banat Republic included only Banat. 81.18.59.27 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

True the Banat Republic did not include Bačka and Srem. However, it did include Serbian Banat part of the region Banat, Bačka and Baranja which - as you say - is Vojvodina. A glance at a map of the Banat Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banat_Republic_bgiu.png) shows that although its capital was in Timisoara, its boundaries include part of Banat, Bačka and Srem. I really can't see why you wish to delete this information. Bigdaddy1981 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But Banat Republic is not significant issue of Serbian history, thus I do not see why we should include it into introduction section of this article. There is separate article named History of Serbia where you can mention this republic in the text. 81.18.51.123 12:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

To better protect this article from vandalism and abuse I will be requesting a lock for semi protection from Admins to be placed, therefore only members with accounts will be able to edit. This is only to better serve this page from possible (and likely) vandal attacks from anonymous accounts and not exclude others from contributing. Thank you -- Bluewings 3:27, Sept 2 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures

While the pictures in this article are pretty and all, they are beginning to seriously pile up. More and more have been added in the past few days/weeks, while the length of the text hasn't been expanded to match. It's reached the point where they are overpowering the actual information. Either several need to be removed entirely, or they need to be spread out more (which means they'll most likely end up in unrelated subsections). Which ones are actually necessary, versus being simply nice to see? Are they all in Commons so they'll still be easily accessible without being shown in the article? -Bbik^★ 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is too many pictures on the Serbia article and it shouldn't be regarded as an issue. We could even say there is not enough. Just look at some other countries, like for example Bosnia & Herzegovina, who has far more pictures than Serbia. Boris4c 12:58 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris4c (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because other articles do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. That aside, while I also feel Bosnia has too many pictures (now that you've pointed it out), they're at least not overlapping as much. They create a wall of images, which isn't very good, but they don't cram the text into a narrow column like many of the images here do. -Bbik^★ 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections all whacked-out

I'd fix this myself, but as my laptop which contained upon its hard disk my 500+ character password has died, I can't log in. Could someone that has access to their account format it properly? Octane ^{[improve me]} 21.09.07 0014 (UTC)

Semi-Presidential Republic

It's very hard to explain. It's something that it's generally known personally to me, so practically the source that I can give you is the Constitution of Serbia, which's authorities put the state as a Semi-presidential system republic. I learned that in the High School as a component part of the subject called The Constitution. If you said that Serbia was a Parliamentary or Conventional Republic, you'd get a 1. If you just said that it had a Presidential system, you'd get a 3. If you said Serbia's a Monarchy you better not appear in class ever again. Just come over to the Political Sciences Faculty and ask anyone.

But if you want something concrete, take a look at Slaviša Orlić's (a Political Science professor) Polupredsednički sistem i partijski sistem Srbije, u Političke stranke u Srbiji, struktura i funkcionisanje. If you just skim around and take a look at the web (Google is rich of it, just type Polupredsednicki sistem and Srbija; in a quick skim I found this), you'll see that Serbia has adopted the Semi-presidential system in 1990, and this Constitution effectively keeps it, albeit according to some weakening the status of President, making him "slightly more" Ceremonial than Executive. But it's a mixed system - so there's no real standard as with other cases.

The reason why I got this weird is because I thought that everyone in Serbia knew that it has a Semi-presidential system. ;) Sorry. --PaxEquilibrium 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends; the problem is that grey has many shades: the country which is a model of Semi-presidential system is clearly France. Now, the presidential ingerentions in Serbia are far weaker than that, but then, far stronger than in e.g. Germany. Even the analysts and politicians don't seem to agree: Goati claims it is semi-presidential, Vucic claims it's parliamentary. OK, I did perform a web search myself and I think I found a reliable source which confirms it...
...which doesn't mean, Pax, that you should have removed the tag if you explained it on my talk page... Wikipedia:Footnotes is behind the corner. Duja► 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize. I know it's difficult, that's why semi-presidential systems are no where practically defined because of their "flexibility". --PaxEquilibrium 13:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet TLD

.rs is active! http://www.rnids.rs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.65.111 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the .rs article somewhat, but frankly, I can't get through the entire legalese and tecnhical gobledygook. Duja► 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

HDI

I'm curious where did data for Serbia's HDI come from? There is no source, and on HDI page Serbia is listed as n/a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.198.195 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Math error in economy population data?

The reported population for 2007 is 10.1 million; the reported GDP (PPP adjusted) is 54.5 billion; thus per capita GDP should be about $5400, but the reported per capita GDP is $7,265. One of these can't be right! Whose job is it to look up the sources and fix it? 67.101.79.159 02:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Dracula (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be your job, young Padawan, if you choose to accept it.

Recent culture additions

Music

Main article: Music of Serbia

First time it entered the competition as a sovereign nation, Serbia won the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest in Helsinki and will thus be the host to the 2008 Eurovision Song Contest. The winning song was "Molitva" ("Pray" in English) sung by Marija Šerifović. Three years before (2004), Željko Joksimović won the second place with his song "Lane moje", while representing the abolished union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Cinema

Main article: Cinema of Serbia

Serbia has a growing film industry. Directors such as Emir Kusturica and actors Velimir Bata Živojinović, Dragan Nikolić, Lazar Ristovski, Vesna Trivalić, Milena Dravić and many more form the core of the Serbian film industry. Serbia’s local production of movies has expanded greatly in the last five years. Films Sutra ujutru (Tomorrow morning), Odbačeni (Left out), Profesionalac (The Professional), Šejtanov ratnik (Sheytan’s warrior), Ivkova slava (Ivko’s feast) and Mi nismo anđeli (We Are Not Angels) are some of the recent popular movies which have come out of Serbia. The large amounts of Serbian film festivals around the world help promote Serbian cinematography in various countries. The Serbian Film Festival in Australia and the Serbian Film Festival in Vienna are one of the longest running Serbian films Festivals.

Theater

Serbia has a well-established theatrical tradition with many theaters. The Serbian National Theater was established in 1861 with its building dating from 1868. The company started performing opera from the end of the 19th century and the permanent opera was established in 1947. It established a ballet company.

BITEF, Belgrade International Theater Festival, is one of the oldest theater festivals in the world. New Theater Tendencies is the constant subtitle of the Festival. Founded in 1967, BITEF has continually followed and supported the latest theater trends. It has become one of five most important and biggest European festivals. It has become one of the most significant culture institutions of Serbia.

Belgrade forms the centre of Serbian theatre with the National Theater and many other theater's like Pozoriste na Terazijama (Theater on the Terazija) which is the Serbian equivalent to Broadway that has produced many musicals such as the Serbian version of Chicago and Gypsy: A Musical Fable. The most famous Serbian actors currently on stage include Predrag Ejdus, Vanja Ejdus , Milan Lane Gutović, Radmila Živković, Aleksandra Nikolić, Sloboda Mićalović, Ivan Bosiljčić, Boris Komnenić, Mihailo Lađevac, Ljiljana Blagojević.

Is this added to Culture of Serbia and other relevant articles? Sorry, this entire stuff suffers from a) too much recentism: most of the above refers to the quite recent events b) too narrow and arbitrary selection: picking up one set of examples while completely disregarding other aspects. Being a native, I've barely heard about some stuff & people, like "Šejtanov ratnik", Mihailo Lađevac, Gypsy: A Musical Fable.

It's all quite inappropriate for the main article about the country, and I'd argue that the music section containing only of Eurosong smells like fandom. Yes, it's hot news. Does it have long-term relevance to the music of Serbia? Hardly. Duja► 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep

I don’t see why it should be taken out. Many countries listed on Wikipedia have such information on their main pages. The films are recent and it is stated that they are recent popular films. If you are a native I don’t know how you haven’t heard of Šejtanov ratnik, one of Serbia’s first fantasy films, Gypsy: A Musical Fable is the English name of the extremely popular (and constantly sold out) musical Cigani lete u nebo and Mihailo Ladjevac is a popular actor and has featured in many movies, he is the actor at Narodno Pozoriste Beograd and the winner of the best actor prize a couple of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaP (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against such summaries per se, but I have to argue that this one is written badly — sorry to be blunt. Take a look at (first that crossed my mind) Hungary#Culture. The people and other items (dishes, sports, inventions) listed there are world-famous; when one mentions some of those, people think "Hungary". I've heard for 80% of those, and I'm a foreigner. I haven't heard about, or only barely so, about half the stuff listed above, and I live in Serbia. Let's face it, we're not famous for cinema and theater, except for Kusturica, and possibly Biljana Srbljanović and Dušan Kovačević: I'd expect to see them rather than Chicago or Cigani lete u nebo. Why does BITEF have half a paragaph, but Sterijino pozorje none? What do Serbian Film Festivals in Australia and Vienna have to do with Serbia? No, I haven't heard of Šejtanov ratnik, nor any of actors playing major roles therein. Why is only Eurosong pertaining to Serbian music? Yes, such information as above has a place in Wikipedia somewhere — but not on Serbia page. Duja► 13:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WW1

This sentence:

Most of its army and some people went to exile to Greece and Corfu where it healed, regrouped and returned to Macedonian front (World War I) to lead a final breakthrough through enemy lines on 15 September 1918, freeing Serbia again and ending the World War I on 11 November.[20]

seems to imply that WW1 was ended and won by Serbia. Not that I mean to minimise the efforts of Serbs, but I'm not sure that it is historically entirely accurate. Fainites ^barley 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. Duja► 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was the last notable battle/event of the war then yes, it ended with that battle, just like WW2 ended with the atomic bombings of Japan. The atomic bomb didn't win ww2, it was merely the last act. Vlad Dracula (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac

NeroN BG reverted with not-so-good-faith-assuming edit summary [1] "do not alter the history". Well, I'm not: however:

• Last time I checked, Jasenovac is not in Serbia. Why it is covered in the broad article about Serbia with 2 paragraphs?
• You know that the victim count in Jasenovac is a disputed and sensitive issue: Jasenovac concentration camp#Victim counts lists a huge range of estimates.
• Picking one extreme victim count estimate, stating it as given fact, is not exactly the best way to solve whatever edit dispute at Jasenovac concentration camp there is. If you agree that e.g. JVL is a neutral source, it does not corroborate the numbers you put in the article.

So, I "altered the history" by reducing the POV language and removing the figures not corroborated by the source. Your revert also erased the sole sentence on Partisans and Chethiks, who weren't even mentioned in the article. Duja► 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

World War II and the Serbian genocide

Where is the refrence where serbian genocide is mentioned??? There is no such document or conformation exept the ones in Serbia. (GriffinSB)

Why did someone erease the fact that 12000 Croats died at Jasenovac?

Should those people be forgotten?And where are the refrences with NPOV?((GriffinSB) (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

seven-hundred-thousand dead, in jasenovac alone. todays ustashi have shamelessly divided

that number by 10, should we put 1200 croats dead in jasenovac? :) -.(Labomba) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.255.101 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation of Serbia

I would like to discuss the year of the foundation of Serbia. I think that the article should mention the foundation of the state called Serbia which was 1217. The previous states were not called Serbia although they were populated by Serbs. It is like Spain - the article mentions the foundation of Spain, not of Asturias or Castilla; it is the same in the United Kingdom as well. So I think we should begin with 1217. --Gligan (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of the province?

Why is the southern province of Serbia in most cases designated as "Kosovo" and not as "Kosovo and Metohia"(Kosovo i Metohija)? The official name of the province is "Kosovo i Metohija", why denying the "Metohija" part? If it's used to save space or for the simplicity of reading, there is a short name of it - "Kosmet", but not "Kosovo" alone. Free from any biases i propose that the name of the province is changed to its official name(use "Kosmet" for short). I myself am a Serb, but that has nothing to do with the official name of the region, now does it? On the side note - the single term "Kosovo" is often used by Albanian minority denying the "Metohija" part, which signifies the "orthodox church lands", what's seen as a threath to the teory that Serb have no rightfull claim on the province. Good day. PrimEviL (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo i Metohija is the official name of the province of Serbia in Serbian. However, it is only de jure a Serbian province, as it is under the UN protectorate and as such it uses the name Kosovo. The acronym Kosmet is far worse solution, as it is not a true word at all, but a made-up word used in the previous socialist regime, which indeed had an affinity toward inventing new words and verbal abbreviations when you think about it (Agitprop, Comintern, Nolit etc.). Almost like Orwell’s Newspeak, isn’t it? ;) I see insisting on "the Metohija part" as Serbocentric to be honest. Only in Serbian the province is called Kosovo i Metohija, and this is the English Wikipedia. --George D. Božović (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is this an encyclopedia or an journalistic article? I have allways thought that the encyclopedias use official data instead of "popular" one. You may call it "serbocentric" as much as you want, but the official name stands and i see no reason why should there be a "popular" one... Unless you care to show me a reason. PrimEviL (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like "Vojvodina" isn't "Vojvodship" or "Dukedom", just like "Lombardia" isn't "Longobardy", just like "San Marino" isn't "Saint Marin", just like "Belarus" isn't "White Russia" - "Kosovo i Metohija" shouldn't be "Kosovo", speccialy if there is no apparent reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrimEviL (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, "Kosovo i Metohija" is only officially used to name the province of Serbia in Serbian. On the other hand, simply "Kosovo" is most often — and even officially I’d say — used to name the UN administrated province in English. This happens to be the English Wikipedia. :) --George D. Božović (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, using "the Serbian name", even though it may be the official one, can cause endless edit wars. It is much safer to use the "shorter" name. After all, the name Kosovo is most often used. You see, the problem with the official Serbian name is that it may be seen as pro-Serbian propaganda by numerous editors, and it is the best for the sake of not obstructing the whole encyclopaedia project not to use it. It’s a simple compromise for the sake of Wikipedia itself. --George D. Božović (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a simmilar(although with much less political tension) issue on the Novak Đoković page, where some editors have the problem with the man's real name, simply because it's being presented as "Djokovic" in western media. I wouldn't like to be missunderstood - i have no back intentions by opening this issue - i simply hate that things aren't named properly... PrimEviL (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That’s somewhat different. "Novak Đoković" is the correct transliteration of that name, while "Novak Djokovic" is the incorrect but more often used version. This is not about transliteration, i.e. which characters to use (the name is either way still the same), but the question is rather which name should be used. Simply "Kosovo" is better exactly because of the political tension — some editors may find the name "Kosovo and Metohija" an example of pro-Serbian propaganda and may start an endless edit war. In any other case, the name "Kosovo and Metohija" would certainly be both more correct and more official, but the shorter name is used because of such problematic political issue... :/ It’s sort of a "win-win" solution in which both sides should give up on something ("the Metohija part", or the Albanian version "Kosova") for the sake of compromise and avoiding edit wars... --George D. Božović (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar issue happened on the Slavic languages template, where all Central South Slavonic languages had to be grouped together under the "Central South Slavic" label in order not to cause edit wars over the status of those languages (if listed separately, some editors would argue over the "equality" of Montenegrin or Bunjevac languages with Serbian or Croatian and so on — see [2]). --George D. Božović (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - even though this IS english(worldwide) wikipedia, this also IS the page of the Republic of Serbia, whose constitutional part is the province of "Kosovo i Metohija". Official names can not be looked up as propaganda, mainly because those names stand for themselves. I don't defend the name of the province here. I am just saying that it's very wrong to use any other name(other names should or even must be noted in the heading) except the official one. To a certain extent i can comprehend the neccessity for compromise on free encyclopedia, but neutrality of the official titles shouldn't be disputed. You, for example, are Ђорђе Божовић, and you shall never be George Godly nor Giorgio Divino, or am i wrong? --PrimEviL (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has popped up periodically on the Kosovo page. Every time it is discussed, the outcome is the same: "Kosovo" is the standad usage in English and should be favored over the Serbian version "Kosovo and Metohija" or even the preferred Albanian version "Kosova." Just check any recent English-language newspaper article and you'll see that they use "Kosovo" with extreme consistency. Furthermore, both UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework -- both of which are the authoritative documents outlining Kosovo's current interim status -- use the traditional English-language form "Kosovo." In my experience, the only people who use "Kosovo and Metohija" are generally Serbs who are trying to prove a point. Similarly, you'll see that Kosovo Albanians often insist on putting "Kosova" in English-language documents to make their own point. Best to stick to the neutral, near-universally accepted "Kosovo" formulation. Envoy202 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned before - on the Novak Đoković page there was an issue of simmilar origin - his name is as it is, but it's presented in western media as "Novak Djokovic", but the article name is still as pointed out. I'm aware of the wrongfulness in the international documents, but I'm not suggesting anything without a basis - the name of the region in fact IS "Kosovo and Metohija", and that can't be disputed. The excuse of "endless edit wars" are just worthy as a reason just like "the need for independence of Kosmet, to prevent Albanian extremists to harras Serbs or to destroy any more churches or monasteries" - ridiculous... The native English speakers should be taught that the proper name is in fact "Kosovo and Metohija", and that the name itself isn't part of any propaganda. Maybe should the wikipedia article help with that education. The worth of encyclopedia is also based on its persistant, even spiteful, dedication to the truth and justice. (I'm not a Calimero, btw :P) --PrimEviL (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On a side note - you can see by the fact that I haven't edited the page so far that I won't try to enforce my judgement(rightful as it may be). I'm just trying to put some sense here... --PrimEviL (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is not our job to determine "truth" ourselves, but rather to rely on reliable sources to guide editing decisions. I don't think I've ever seen "Kosovo and Metohija" used by any reliable source (e.g., other encyclopedias, international documents, press articles, etc.) nor is it common English-language usage. The use of the term "Kosovo and Metohija" in English has been exclusively an ethnic Serb phenomenon, generally in a context where Serbs are trying to make a certain political point about Kosovo's future status. Envoy202 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If I could throw my two cents in here, I think the appropriate analogy is western use of "Bosnia" rather than the proper "Bosnia and Hercegovina". It's not that people are trying to downplay the influence of Croats, but that the shorter version is easier to use. What if we just wrote "Kosovo and Metohija" the first time, and pointed out that for brevity's sake, Kosovo would be used in the rest of the article. Dchall1 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concirned, I could consider it partialy in order if the main article name would be "Kosovo and/i Metohi(j)a", and then "Kosovo" used further on. Offcourse, "Kosovo and Metohia" used in whole "Serbia" page should be used mainly because it's article about Serbia and in Serbia's legal documents region is named "Kosovo i Metohija". Cheers. --PrimEviL (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)