Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:21, 1 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kosovo High‑importance Serbia is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Belgrade Template:WP1.0 Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, February 15, 2010, February 15, 2011, and February 15, 2012.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serbia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Request to Include Factual Info on Serbia

The first state to be found in breach of the Genocide convention was Serbia. In the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide during the Bosnian war, but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić.

Semi-presidential or parliamentary republic?

In Serbian constitution it is stated that Serbia is parlamentary republic. However, in many articles, for example, in this one: http://www.semipresidentialism.com/The_Semi-presidential_One/Blog/Entries/2011/8/31_Historic_cases_of_semi-presidentialism_-_Peru_2.html is clearly stated that Serbia is semi-presidential republic, because president is elected directly. Should we, at least, add a footnote?--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, no constitution in the world will say that "Foo is a semi-presidential republic", so it is not a particularly good source. Technically, parliament is always the highest body in every democracy. However, nature of the system is judged by analysts and politologists, and in this case they're fairly unanimous in classifying Serbian as "semi-presidential". No such user (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. So, what should we do?--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. I thought that we had "semi-presidential" mentioned somewhere in the article, and I'm sure it used to be here. However, it's not. It has been discussed long time ago, see Talk:Serbia/Archive 4#Semi-Presidential Republic, but with no clear conclusion. If not in the infobox, that should be mentioned in Politics section, as well as in Politics of Serbia. However, the source you bring is not reliable, being a blog. We need to find something better than that. This one is, unfortunately, a student's work, so it's out too. http://www.google.rs/search?q=Serbia+semi-presidential+system gives some useful hits, but it should be researched a bit more. No such user (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I saw on other Misplaced Pages pages, there is possibility that president is elected directly even in parliamentary system. However, in practice, it is more than obvious that incumbant influenced formation of executive branch and even more influenced Serbia`s politics. I would even say that he- by doing that- exceeded some of his constitutional powers (that should be largely ceremonial), so Serbia is heading towards so called "super-presidency", as stated in some of articles. --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was really surprised to read that Serbia is a parliamentary republic because i had the impression that it was a presidential or a semi-presidential republic. Can somebody please confirm that in the constitution is written specifically a parliamentary republic? While it is not uncommon to directly elect a president in a parliamentary republic the difference is that the position is mostly symbolical and that real power is vested in the prime minister, however this doesn't seem to be the case with Serbia. If it is true that the constitution states parliamentary republic while giving extended power to the president than i would say that this is a very surprising mistake that any political scientist should know. Purusbonum (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Karađorđe Petrović

Would it be possible to include the picture of Karađorđe Petrović again on the article about Serbia? He is named as the founder of the modern Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.51.48 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

His image has been added.--Zoupan (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I can see that there is some cind of edit war, conserning pictures which shoud be featured on this article. For example we have two pictures on Nemanjić dynasty. They are indeed important, maybe the most important, but they ruled for ~200 years, and Middle Ages lasted from the 5th century to the 15th century. I added some other picture, few days ago, and now it's simply gone. There is no need to be ignorant. My suggestion is that we should talk here, about it.

Mm.srb (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Podujevo srusena crkva.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Podujevo srusena crkva.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Podujevo srusena crkva.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To add information about Serbia's armed forces and foreign relations. Add information to how old Serbia's armed forces are, what they do, and their relations with other armies. Add information about Serbia's foreign relations and who they have relations with and who they have the best and worst relations with.

Europe562 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The template is for specific requests which someone else will type in for you. Since you are registered, Just wait four days and make three or four more edits and you will be able to edit this article. Welcome, Celestra (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please include a picture of Vuk Jeremic, Mirko Cvetkovic, and Dragan Sutanovic and a picture of the palace of Serbia and the presidential house.

184.6.145.76 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The template is for specific requests. You will need to find pictures which comply with our image use policy and find someone willing to upload them for you, then open a new request saying where you want the picture to be. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Subotica centar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Subotica centar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Subotica centar.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Autoput Jug.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Autoput Jug.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Autoput Jug.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Solar Plant in the town of Zrenjanin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Solar Plant in the town of Zrenjanin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Solar Plant in the town of Zrenjanin.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Map - Administrative division

Could someone add a map for Administrative division ? Like it's done here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/Colombia#Administrative_divisions http://en.wikipedia.org/Croatia#Administrative_division — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm.srb (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

History

This page suffers from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects none of the recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. I have tried to include some of these (all sourced, off course). I would like to reiterate that wikipedia is not about writing up nationalist myths, but about presenting the most common held views of scholars. Ottomanist (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This page suffers not from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects of course recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. From your point of view this may be so, but look at the page of times over the Ottoman Empire, than you see which side is suffering totally biased, nationalist reading of history.Best wishes--Nado158 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that, I've managed to add a few sources which bring the Ottoman part unto scratch. Ottomanist (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Undid Ottomanist POV

I have undone this edit on the ground that it is strongly pro-Ottomanist pov (after all, the user's name says it quite clearly) and gives undue weight to views that are still controversial and somewhat partisan. While the material is indeed sourced, it presents what are controversial matters and subjects of dispute among scholars and uncontroversial facts, and this the definition of undue weight. Also, it is poorly written, with an editorializing and partisan tone ("However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars have refuted" and again with the "However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars"), and as such is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's just analyse what you just wrote "gives undue weight to views that are still controversial" - controversial to whom? Who are these "scholars" who dispute the works of a Greek anthropologist (Kitromilides) who relied on Orthodox priests' biography for his views of the Ottoman empire?

If it was poorly written, then use your skills to edit, but don't remove wholesourced sections - something which is against wikipedia rules. I will revert your edit Ottomanist (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit for now per WP:BRD, but sources have been listed. Anthenean, you should provide evidence for a sources conflict. If you can't, the edit should go through. Ottomanist, please consider waiting a while for Athenean to show evidence with regard to the existence of a controversy. -- Director (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I need a few days to conduct a proper literature search, but what I especially object to are the tenor and slant of Ottomanist's edits, as well as their relevance to the article. For example here , in the last paragraph, he takes the previous sourced wording and adds "According to the nationalist reading of history...". Ottomanist's characterization is not sourced, it is OR. There are plenty of sources that attest to the brutality, arbitraryness and capricious nature of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and no, they are not "nationalist", and it's not hard to find them if one is willing to look . Ottomanist is clearly trying to portray the Ottoman period in a positive light, that's why he labels descriptions of the brutality of Ottoman rule as "nationalist", while describing "Ottomanist (no pun intended) sources as "modern" and "post-constructivist" . "Post-constructivist" doesn't even mean anything, it is just an attempt to associate the Ottomanist POV with positive sounding words like "constructive" and "modern". Such labels should be avoided. The claim that the Serb migrations have been "refuted" is similarly POV. Anscombe and especially Malcolm are highly partisan sources, they have not "refuted" anything. "Refuted" implies a certain finality, that the matter has been closed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lastly, and most importantly, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss how religiously tolerant the Ottoman Empire was. There are plenty of articles for that, e.g. Millet system, Religion in the Ottoman Empire, but the function of the history section of this article is to discuss Ottoman rule in the territory of Serbia, which mostly consists of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals, and little else. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Specious arguments won't do any good here. I provided sources as per wikipedia guidelines, and you say you "need a few days to do a literature search" -- why would you need to do that if you're already convinced Noel Malcom and Anscombe are biased? Moreover, I think you'll find historians have moved away from seeing hundreds of years of Ottoman rule as "mostly of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals." I'll give it a few days and revert to the previous sourced edits.

You have shot your self in the foot by referring to a work by Inalcik, Faroqhi and Quataert, who are all Ottomanists of the highest standing, but who don't agree with your outdated historiography. Ottomanist (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Athenean. First of all, I suggest you conduct a literature search and provide sources that contradict the statements and/or "tone" of edit. If there aren't any, we move on. Next, what I propose is that you point out exactly which sentences (or parts thereof or reoccurring phrases) you consider biased, and then Ottomanist can show us a few direct quotations that justify phrases like "according to the nationalist reading of history" (specifically in that case one would require a source that uses a similar phrase, I assume there is one?), etc.

Personally, from what I can see, there is a certain "slant" in the added text. However, as sources have been listed, I can only assume they have been followed? Perhaps Ottomanist can copy-down a few quotations from the listed sources that he believes support his position? For example, a quotation from a source with the phrase "nationalist reading of history" would support the usage of such a phrase in a sentence etc. (we ourselves can certainly not invent "readings" of history). That way we can rest at ease that the tone of the scholarly reference has been conveyed faithfully (i.e. that there is no "slant"). Ottomanist?

Basically what I'm saying is that, since a source is listed, there are only three things we need to concern ourselves with: 1. is the source reliable? 2. has its position been conveyed faithfully? and 3. are there contradicting sources? Since the sources seem reliable enough, only the other two questions need concern us. -- Director (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, looking at the latest edit by Ottomanist , there are three new sources that are introduced. Two of them regard the Serb Migrations out of Kosovo, the other is Kitromilidis regarding religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the first two, Anscombe and Malcolm, they challenge the Serb migrations, however this is a minority viewpoint. It is trivial to find contradicting sources, and many of them , and all of high quality. Furthermore, while Anscombe's and Malcolm's challenge to the Serb migrations is noted in the article on the Great Serb Migrations, considering that theirs is a recent and minority view, their inclusion here is beyond the scope of the article, i.e. it is undue weight. Regarding Kitromilidis, I do not dispute that Christians were allowed to practice their faith freely in the Ottoman Empire, however once again I feel this is a question of undue weight. One sentence would be ok, but 3 is far too much. In addition, if we were to include a sentence about religion in the Ottoman Empire, we should then also mention the various forms of discrimination that Christians in the Ottoman empire faced, as detailed here (see Ch. 2). Labeling of sources as "nationalist", "post-constructivist", etc...should also be avoided. Lastly, Ottomanist's clumsy and disruptive attempts at canvassing users he thinks are sympathetic to his POV are also noted .Athenean (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but your sources don't hold up to scrutiny. Anscombe is an expert in Ottoman history (and he challenges Noel Malcolm - far from agreeing with him). The sources you provided (such as Banac), are studies on the first Yugoslav Kingdom, not the Ottoman Empire - besides, he's explaining Serbian ideas about Kosovo, not stating historical facts. As with your earlier attempt to present sources (which actually dismissed nationalist historiographies), your other sources, such as Osman Karatay, don't even deal in detail with what you're arguing about, same with many of the other sources who only mention the word "Serb migration" without even discussing the supposed event. Read what the experts have to say, found here, and what your own recommendation Faroqhi says.
Direktor, I propose a sentence like this: "According to scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire, the Great Serb migration was either much smaller than originally stated by Serb writers (source Noel Malcolm) or it did not occur at all (source Anscombe). Other writers contend it did happen (source Serb historians and other non-specialists Athenean mentioned)." Ottomanist (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Athenean

• I don't think a simple search on Google Books will do the trick. The bare minimum is an author, a year, and a page number. Preferably also a brief quotation and/or link. List a few sources in such a manner that contradict Ottomanist's position, and you'll have shown a source conflict. Please be careful, however, to only list sources if they're describing their own position, and not someone else's.
• WP:CANVASSING is annoying but its usually pretty useless. This isn't a democracy, and, in my experience, no amount of "pressure" will get an edit through without consensus.

@Ottomanist

• Lets please not WP:CANVASS people, Ottomianist. Whatever may be the actual case, it makes you look like you don't have the sources, and need pals to push something through. Also as I said, its pretty useless. All the more for being noticed.
• Firstly, we do not require a scholar to be a specialist in a particular field in order to count him as a reliable source. An author even need not necessarily be a professional historian. If its a published scholarly work - its a valid, reliable source. That's all that matters. Banac is a respected historian (from Yale iirc, and he's not Serbian) and it doesn't matter whether his study primarily focuses on the Ottoman period or not. If, however, the author is not stating his own opinion, but is describing the opinions of laymen, then we must disregard such statements. But it doesn't really matter much what the primary focus of a study is, as long as a scholar presents his position on a subject.
• Secondly, we cannot make statements on behalf of all "scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire" - there must be thousands upon thousands of them. If there is a sources conflict, and we choose to describe it in the text - we list the sources by name.

P.S. I've had a look around, and my general impression is that most authors accept that the "Great Serb Migrations" did occur, but that this conservative position is challenged by a number of authors. I've not had the time to research the matter thoroughly, though. -- Director (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I kindly request that you take a quick look at the work by Anscombe, the link is provided, where he deals with historiography (how history has been written, and the limitations of the sources, etc.,). Banac is a historian of the Yugoslav period (he's Croatian, but that's not even the point here?) - the point is that that he's describing an opinion not saying he agrees or disagrees. Again, I urge you to read the Anscombe article to get a clearer picture about the Serb migration.

Secondly, my whole section, which was sourced with an author called Kitromilides, who talked about how the Ottoman Empire helped to forge a common Orthodox worldview among Balkan people was deleted. Against wikipedia rules to remove sourced material? I will restore this, but I would rather do it with consent.

(P.S. post-constructivist scholars are people who don't see ethnicity or nationality as 'primordial' and fully-formed to begin with, but is 'constructed' over time, using history, myths and other devices) Ottomanist (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is not acceptable to disregard or sideline sources based on what period they primarily focus on. That's not WP:V. Also, explicit agreement is not necessary, nor is the "its an opinion" line an acceptable excuse: it is precisely the educated opinions of published scholars that we're looking for.

That also means, however, that we should by no means disregard the sources you've presented. They certainly do challenge the existence/extent of the "Great Serb Migrations". I don't think there's any chance we'll end up omitting them. What I'd like to see now, are about a half-dozen properly cited sources for the "Great Serb Migrations" (if there are any), so that we can finally conclusively establish a sources conflict. Then, we should evaluate which position has more support, and move on from there. Its always annoying when there's a sources conflict, there's no easy way about it. -- Director (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't mean to bang on about this but Banac in the sourced text is speaking of an opinion crucial to Serbian claims on Kosovo - he isn't discussing whether he agrees with it - so he can't be used to 'verify' it (moreover, he isn't the biggest fans of Serbs anyways!). I agree with you, let users provide their sources, and I'll provide quotations from the ones I've used. Then we can work on a good article. Ottomanist (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Like I said earlier, it's not hard to find good sources on the Serb Migrations. One must really try to look the other way in order not to.

1. Velikonja, Mitja. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina - Page 76 . Texas A&M Press, 2003.

2. Mitev, Plaven. Empires and Peninsulas: Southeastern Europe Between Karlowitz and the Peace of Adrianople 1699-1829 - Page 172 . Lit Verlag Munster, 2010.

3. Lampe, John R. Yugoslavia As History: Twice There Was a Country - Page 55 . Cambridge University Press, 2000.

4. Bucur, Maria, and Meriwether Wingfield, Nancy. Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, from 1848 to the Present - Page 237 . Purdue University Press, 2001.

5. Popović, Tanya. Prince Marko: the hero of South Slavic epics - Page 38 . Syracuse University Press, 1988.

6. Aleksov, Bojan. Religious dissent between the modern and the national: Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia, 1850-1914. - Page 32 . Otto Harrassowtix Verlag, 2006.

7. Sugar, Peter F. Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354-1804 - Page 309 . University of Washington Press, 1993.

8. Dutceac Segesten, Anamaria. Myth, Identity, and Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of Romanian and Serbian Textbooks . Lexington Books, 2011.

9. Ingrao, Charles, Samardžić, Nikola, and Pesalj Jovan. The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718 - Page 28 . Purdue University Press, 2011.

10. Safran, William, and Máiz, Ramón. Identity and Territorial Autonomy in Plural Societies - Page 176 . Routledge, 2000.

11. Kostovicova, Denisa. Kosovo: the politics of identity and space - Page 150 , Routledge, 2005.

12. Jelavich, Charles, and Jelavich, Barbara. The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics Since the Eighteenth Century - Page 98 . University of California Press, 1963.

13. Alexander, Ronelle. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary - Page 416 . University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

14. Byron, Reginald, and Kockel, Ullrich. Negotiating Culture: Moving, Mixing and Memory in Contemporary Europe - Page 147 . LIT Verlag Munster, 2006.

15. Liotta, P.H. Dismembering the State: The Death of Yugoslavia and Why It Matters - Page 200 . Lexington Books, 2001.

16. Meier, Viktor. Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise - Page 24 . Routledge, 1999.

17. Elsie, Robert. Historical Dictionary of Kosovo - Page 118 . Scarecrow Press, 2010.

I know you asked for only half a dozen Direktor, but within a couple of hours of searching I found well over a dozen. And there are many, many more. I obviously cannot list them all here, but you get the idea (that was the point of my earlier Google Search). Finding sources is as easy as searching for "Serb migrations" or "Serb migrations 1690", and this was one of the easier searches I have done. From my reading of the literature, it appears that the Serb migrations out of Kosovo in 1690 and later years are a historical fact that is not disputed by the academic community. It is characteristic that even sources sympathetic to the Albanian cause, such as Robert Elsie and Noel Malcolm do not dispute the veracity of these events. While it may be true that Serbian nationalist historiography has exaggerated the size of the migrations, that does not call into question their veracity, nor is it within the scope of this article to discuss this. Against this massive array of sources, all we have is the one paper by Anscombe, which to my knowledge is the only source that explicitly challenges the existence of the Serb migrations. Athenean (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Right :). Yes, like I said, it seems that the Great Serb Migrations are the majority position - which is being challenged by a number of authors. The issue now is to see how much emphasis is required for the "challengers". The range would be:

1. presenting the two positions equally

2. presenting the "challenger" position as a widespread position (along the lines of "the great serb migrations are, however, disputed by some scholars")

3. simply listing the few "challenger" authors (e.g. "Historians XY and ZX dispute the existence of the migrations")

4. disregarding the "challenge" entirely as a WP:FRINGE view.

That all depends on the number of authors we find that oppose the migrations. How many such sources can you find, Ottomanist? -- Director (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What we have to understand about writing history is that it is often a tool for political ideology. Moreover, historiography changes all the time, as new sources come to light. The best way to present the issue is to go for option three, since it represents the latest research (Anscombe's paper) in the field by an expert whose paper is peer reviewed and accepted by a highly reputable body (The International History Review) as sound scientific research. Ottomanist (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that option three would probably be optimal, with the source we've seen so far. This means we elaborate on the migrations normally, but we add a small caveat explaining that authors XX and XY and ZZ challenge the above. Sound alright? -- Director (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, do you think we should present changes here or just make them then discuss? Ottomanist (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a question of due weight here. I mean, we are taking about a single paper. It is telling that even though the paper was published in 2006, it hasn't been cited in the literature (as far as I can tell) and Anscombe's view hasn't been adopted by the scholarly community. Some of the sources I have provided above are from after 2006, and they do not cast doubt on the veracity of the migrations. While Anscombe's paper can and should be mentioned in the article on the Great Serb Migrations, I think adding it here gives undue weight to what is a minority position in what is a rather general article. Thus, I think the paper should be left out and the issue of the Serb Migrations is best discussed in detail at Great Serb Migrations. This article only meant to provide a a summary style version of Serbia's history, not get into details like which scholar challenges what and which other scholars challenge that in turn, etc.,. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to avoid the whole issue by simply not mention the Great Serb Migrations at all, by just saying that southern Serbia was depopulated by constant warfare and uprisings and leaving it at that, which is both true and easily sourced. Athenean (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we should leave that to Great Serb Migrations articles. This is main and general article about Serbia, and should not deal with minority positions. Just imagine the mess that wiki would be if we do that. Only Great Serb Migrations article is good for that, not this one, for sure. --WhiteWriter 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point of our discussion above. There are two reliable expert scholars who both question the extent (or the existence rather) of the supposed migration. That is enough to merit a mention. Ottomanist (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not asking that question here. Why are you pushing, there is really no need to mention those thing in here. Go to Great Serb Migrations with that. --WhiteWriter 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some have failed to glance properly at the discussion in question. Another solution is to scrap mention of the supposed migration altogether and focus on the page which deals specifically with it. Ottomanist (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

The section Ottoman and Austrian Rule needs some additions or changes

1. According to Somel, "The Serbian patriarchate which had been abolished in 1459 was reestablished in 1557; this provided the continuation of Serbian cultural traditions within the empire".(S.Aksin Somel :Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Scarecrow Press Oxford, 2003, ISBN 0 8108 4332-3 p 268)
2. It may be added that the Ottoman millet system was a partial autonomy . According to Shaw, "was created the millet system of autonomous self-government under religious leaders" (Stanford Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey , Cambridge Press, ISBN 0 521 29163 1 p.59)
3. Banat Uprising should be reworded . Actually it was a part of the Long War between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs. According to Agaston-Masters, "Serbs took an active part as opponents of the Ottomans, including organizing uprisings" (Agoston-Masters:Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire ISBN-10: 0-8160-6259-5 , p.518)
4. It is claimed that "Vojvodina endured a century long Ottoman occupation before being ceded to the Habsburg Empire in the 17th–18th centuries." Technically the last part of this sentence is not correct. Because Vojvodina was ceded to Habsburgs by the treaties Karlowits and Passarowitz the first in 1699 and the second in 1718. Thus in the 17th century Vojvodina was not a part of Habsburg Empire.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing important sources. Will make relevant changes. Ottomanist (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, more work needs to be done since the Middle Ages section cuts into vital parts of the Ottoman period. A map will also be needed to show the size of Serbia during the Ottoman period. Ottomanist (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use sources like Stanford Shaw. He is extremely partisan, outdated, and his work has been heavily criticized by other scholars. FYI, the Patriarchate of Pec was abolished in 1766, I thought you would know that. So I replaced Shaw with that. Also, please don't change wording while keeping the same source (like you did for the sentence about the Sanjak of Smederevo), that could be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty. The source was anyway not working, so I replaced it with a much better source. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I kindly request that you stop presenting your self as some sort of prominent historian who can discount the works of Proffessor Shaw. Name me one historian who hasn't had their work criticised? You are not here to conduct original research, but to contribute to the making of an encyclopaedia based mainly on secondary sources. Thus you should make changes and refrain from personal attacks about peoples honesty and assume good faith. (sorry to bring this here, but Athenean doesn't respond on his talk page, which is highly rude). Ottomanist (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not engaging in any kind of original research. The (long) criticism section on the Stanford J. Shaw article, which you would do well to read, is very well sourced. I don't recall being under any obligation to respond to you on my talkpage, but one reason I can think of for not doing so is so as to encourage you to stay away from my talkpage, which I would prefer. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue some editors have is that new research into the Ottoman period goes against romantic mythologies which are central to many nationalisms in the Balkans today, indeed, they are part of the identity of many nations. The construction of the Greek nation from many disparate ethno-linguistic groups relies particularly on the idea of a 'Turkish yoke' holding back the 'natural' expression of the so-called Greek nation. Thankfully, academia is not interested in constructing nations but with deconstructing mythologies and conducting scientific analyses of sources. If that doesn't suit some editors, then a modern encyclopaedia like Misplaced Pages isn't for them - especially not in the the long run since scholarship will keep debunking nationalist myths. Ottomanist (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Southern province

Serbia's self-proclaimed 'southern province' means absolutely nothing. On an encyclopaedia we spell the facts, we don't use quotations; either something is or it isn't. I cannot ascertain whether the remark is drafted to mean: southern province in quotes because some feel it might actually be the northern province; or does it mean self-proclaimed because the region was already contested prior to its declaration of independence (in which case, from whom exactly did it declare independence?). Once the editor establishes what he meant and provides sources for his claim, we can work on tidying the section to produce the full facts. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Not only is the use of scare quotes tendentious and unencyclopedic, but the calling Kosovo a "self-professed southern province" makes no sense wthasover. As far I can tell, Kosovo professed itself to be an independent country, certainly not a southern province. Thanks for fixing that. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be orderly and discuss changes here before removing edits. If you cannot 'ascertain whether the remark' means this or that then please ask me here. You made three changes but only refer here to one, proving that you were either unaware of the changes made (not the first time, such as here, where you edit warred without knowing the restrictions on the article , or you just made a blanket edit because you disagree with whatever an editor says.

1) It was written southern province in ' ' marks because thheir is a dispute between Serbia which considers Kosovo its Southern Province, whereas the authorities in Pristina consider it a separate state.

2) Kosovo was 'administered' by the UN not 'governed' since the KLA representatives were the first to take over municipalities post-conflcit etc, but that's for a different article.

3) The bit in the lead about the whole of 'modern-day' Serbia was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire is more accurate than saying merely 'Serbia' because the borders back then were much smaller and extended in different directions when compared to the modern Republic.

Ottomanist (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

All right. Point 2 is fine, the U.N. stood at the top but as you rightly say, Kosovo has been governed from within. Priština controls the larger part, North Kosovska Mitrovica the three municipalities of the north. Point 1 - this dispute is the case today, it was not so prior to the declaration of independence. Therefore it is fine to leave out the quotes in that particular context. If discussing Kosovo post-February 2008, you can just refer to Kosovo per se, no "province", no "country", these can be left out. Point 3 - yes Serbia's borders have chopped and changed but the Ottomans evntually conquered the Serbian Empire. The fact that modern-day Serbia fell to the Ottomans is a separate issue and can be addressed by extending the section to state Serbia then including all of Serbia now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also, removed bit about 're-establishing' - better to say it was 'established' since the ancient Serbian kingdom and modern Serbia are two different things, not the same territory etc., - Ottomanist (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update religion per Religion in Serbia and Religion in Vojvodina. The actual informations are OK, but I mostly think of updating the bar boxes ('colour columns') with new informations added and also making Religion in Vojvodina one of main articles of 'Religion' section. So, change "

" to "

" and "

" to "

;

". With regards, 178.223.198.96 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Changes are minor. A request template is not needed. You may ask at help desk for minor changes such as this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Hudson, Alexandra (26 February 2007). "Serbia cleared of genocide, failed to stop killing". Reuters.
2. ICJ:Summary of the Judgment of 26 February 2007 – Bosnia v. Serbia
3. Court Declares Bosnia Killings Were Genocide The New York Times, 26 February 2007. A copy of the ICJ judgement can be found here
4. Cite error: The named reference popis2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Serbia articles
• Top-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• B-Class Kosovo articles
• High-importance Kosovo articles
• WikiProject Kosovo articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2012)