Talk:Kingdom of Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

My "nationalistic" edits

Honestly speaking, the paragraph of the Serbo-Bulgarian war is far better and more informative in the way I have edited it. It is a fact that Bulgaria won the war, which is not mentioned, it is a fact that the war began with a Serbian invasion, which is not mentioned and I don't see anything nationalistic about that. So you can mention that Serbia won the Balkan Wars but cannot mention that Bulgaria won the Serbo-Bulgarian war.

And then again you say in the paragraph for the Balkan wars "liberated significant territorial areas of Central Balkans and almost doubled its territory". What does liberated mean? All fact suggest that Vardar Macedonia was populated mainly by Bulgarians and even if we believe in the crap about the Macedonians, they are still not Serbs and you cannot call that "liberation", or at least not if you want to be neutral not nationalistic, as you are accusing me.

And concerning my third edit, Bulgaria had much more important role in the defeat of Serbia in WW1 that Germany, so that is why I placed it second, and on the other hand, alphabetically it is again second. I am sorry but I can hardly call that nationalistic. --Gligan (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Before WWI, people of Vardar Macedonia were mixed in sentiment - some declared Serb, others Bulgarian. After WWII, sentmiment had grown bitter towards both parties and today, no Macedonian would consider absorption by Bulgaria or Serbia as an act of liberation. That said, today, about 1.5% of the population continues to call itself Serb whilst about 1,000 (less than 0.1%) identify as Bulgarian. Evlekis (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Yes but all evidence suggest that the Bulgarians were considerable majority when compared to Serbs in Macedonia. But still, the fact is that you can't call my edits nationalistic in that case and are in fact an improvement and I think that they should be returned. --Gligan (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
At first, and I know this is a very usufull excuse here in wikipedia, your edits are unsourced. You are certainly unaware, but that page is currently experiencing an edit war. The page was recently blocked. The article is very incomplete. There is a direct link to the Serbo-Bulgarian War just at the beggining of the section. The section is open to further expantion. The Macedonian nationality must be accepted, and regarding them as simply Serbs or Bulgarians may be considered offensive. They are a recognised nationality, we can agree or not, but that debate shouldn´t happend here, in Kingdom of Serbia page.
The entire sections were very recently introduced, and a neutral POV editor is needed. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem as such Gligan. If we mention Bulgaria taking Pirot then we will also have to mention that Bulgaria's reason for capitulation was for fear of Austria-Hungary siding with Serbia (then ruled by Obrenović tribe). I feel it goes slightly off-topic. It won't harm to mention it. As for Bulgarians forming a majority, I don't know about those sources but I will happily omit the term "liberate" for Vardar Macedonia, I try not to use that term ever if I can help it. Evlekis (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Evlekis, I used that term on purpose, ironically, in the edit war with Mladifilozof (see history of page). FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, in fact I fully support mentioning the diplomatic intervention of Austria-Hungary and its ultimatum. That was crucial for the end of the war after all. But with one thing to know - Bulgaria did not capitulate :):):) We won, the winners do not capitulate. We did what the Austrians wanted but that is not capitulation.
Honestly speaking if you have the war in separate section it should be expanded in that case, other wise I would suggest to make a section called wars, or something of the sort. But in any case I thing that it would be improvement to return my edit to that particular section which has a link to the battle of Slivnitsa, the main action in the war. For those things we do not need citations but if we find citation we might mention that the war was called "The war of the generals and captains", which is interesting but I don't known whether it is widely known. --Gligan (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
All right, let's be fair. I didn't mean Bulgaria lost when I used the term "capitulate". Bulgaria did indeed defend its north-western region successfully. The result of the war was no handover of territory in any direction. The borders remained the same. I suppose there is no problem with the link to the Slivnitsa Battle when after all, that is precisely what the 1885-86 conflict was. To FkpCascais, I recommend we be diplomatic here because Gligan's points do carry some weight and he is not in league with the other user who submitted blatant anti-Serb remarks. Are you all right with that? Evlekis (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I agree, but the problem is that if we start mentioning every city/town conquered,liberated or taken in all Serbian wars, well have to split the article. I think that with your experience you know what is the problem: the tone things are said. It did sounded litlle bit tendentious, that is wy neither I edit here, just control other people´s edits. FkpCascais (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section is good that way, thank you ;-) --Gligan (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What is more important FkpCascais, is establishing peace among ourselves! The Pirot chapter marks an end to the Serbo-Bulgarian war and has the excuse for being a detail of this chapter. On principle you are right however, the experience of every settlement when in transit between old and new ruler is a subject for the town's article and not the page itself. But we haven't produced clutter here so I hope you are happy to give this much. Pleased you like it Gligan. Evlekis (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Many thanx Evlekis, this page requires attention from a neutral editor. If you can, please follow the edits here, specially Mladifiloz ones. This way the text does sound more "encyclopedic". It´s only a question of words really, the facts were not in dispute, I know the history as well. It was one of the most sad acts of Serbia ever. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

picture

Internationally recognized Kingdom of Serbia 1882–1912.

I propose using of this image in the infobox. This was internationally recognized borders of Serbian Kingdom during the longest period of its existence, since the Serbia became a Kingdom 1882. until the Balkan Wars 1912. All the other borders were less lasted, or it wasn't internationally recognized. --Mladifilozof (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn´t internationally recognised? Ha, ha... Your only objective (by knowing your edit history) is to show that Kosovo didn´t belonged to Serbia, so you can continue, together with some other editors, your "push" towards the "Kosovo historically never did, so it shouldn´t, belong to Serbia" theory. Listen, if you wan´t my opinion, I don´t completely opose Kosovo independence (as strange that may sound to you), but for other, very different, reasons than yours. The problem is that whatever the POV´s are, the problem is just much bigger than this, and you are not showing any respect towards Serbia, it´s history, and it´s people. Your edits are "childish", very tendentious, and your past words towards User:Tadija in his talk page, citing: "we (Serbs, I supose you meant) must cry and write about the crimes that our country (fanny, you consider Serbia your country, strange, at least) commited to others, so we can be redemed." show that in any way you would be capable of writting about Serbia, nor it´s politics or history. If you personally did something in the past, so you need redemption, please, do as you like, but don´t offend other people and stop conspireing against Serbian people. As Serbia did get victorious in various wars, it does have many enemies, so it wan´t be hard for you to find pseudo-editors of "historical" texts exposing various "anti-Serb" theories. Since the recent historical events also tend to "favorize" those theories, you´re pretty much in advantage, but that doesn´t mean that it´s thru. I do feel sorry that Serbia is today a relatevelly weak country, because it should act with law-suits against the authors of this kind of texts where lies are written.
"Mladifilozof" as much as I don´t beleve in anything you say (you´re Serb, redemption, etc,), you can edit freely here, but there is a limit where adding information (what most editors here do), gives place, in your case, to a strong political agenda, in wich anything goes. If you´re finantially or in any other way supported to do so, that doesn´t give you the right to edit whatever you want, and knowing that the case is sensible, you should be more carefull. Serbian history is way too much complex to a person with your complexes to understand it, and as you don´t show any improvement in order to respect other points of view, I sincerelly advice you to stop editing Serbian history, and edit where you feel less emotive, becouse that is the only way you could edit having a NPOV. FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, less words more arguments. Wikipedia is not discussion forum. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You want discussion, now you don´t? There is nothing to discuss about content. Your edits are not NPOV. FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mladifilozof versus facts

Here is a list of maps from external sources that show that all these territories gained by Serbia in 1912-1913 were internationally regarded as part of Kingdom of Serbia and are shown as such in these maps (it disapprove claims of user:Mladifilozof that these territories were not part of Serbia): PANONIAN 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page not a gallery. Your so-called maps are from pro-Serb sources and mean nothing because Noel Malcolm's work is based on investigation and proffessional findings. End of the day, its the reliable source what counts. Human Rights Believer (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear vandal, please do not blank list of references (this is not image gallery, but list of external links). If you cannot contest these sources, blanking is not a solution. Also in his book "Kosovo - a short history" Noel Malcolm published a map similar to those from these external links, so your own source disapprove you. 195.178.62.134 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to edit on the article for thye moment because I have just been unblocked and I have to change my attitude. So hyere goes, Noel Malcolm's map was based on Kosova having been annexed into Serbia, but it was not legally incorporated, it just remained occupied by the Serb military. He states clearly that this was so and he is probably the most reliable unbiased source you get for Balkans subjects. Human Rights Believer (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you PANONIAN. It is nice to see a friendly face again after so long. I'm keeping a close eye on this page, especially where the user you named is concerned. With this list of sources, there can be no ambiguity or uncertainty of facts. I hope you stay around and watch this page. Evlekis (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Many thanx PANONIAN. The page was under heavy attack from that user (others pages are too), and all help is welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
PANONIAN, Thanks for bringing good sources that will finish and undone all questionable editing. -- Tadija (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed picture

Internationally recognized Kingdom of Serbia 1882–1912.

I propose this image for the infobox. This was internationally recognized borders of Serbian Kingdom during the longest period of its existence, since the Serbia became a Kingdom 1882 until the Balkan Wars 1912. What is the reason for using other image?--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean as an initial picture? That one is fine. We do need various incarnations of the entity throughout the article however to reflect its phases through time. Evlekis (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I disagree. The Kingdom of Serbia lasted 36 years. This map shows the primary K.of Serbia, from 1982 until 1912. There is the map that Mladifilozof kindly bringed here (the one showing Serbian occupation of Albania) that is also a candidate. And there is the "pre-WWI" map. Mladifilozof proposes the "smaller" Serbia, we all know wy. I could propose the "biggest" Serbia, with the maximal Kingdom expansion, Albania included. So, the "pre-WWI" map is the intermedium one. On the other side, the most used map is the "pre-WWI" Serbia, since it was that the most important historical period. Also the most recent one (another heavy reason). FkpCascais (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Resuming:

  • Mladifilozof proposes the "smaller" Serbia map on the argument that it lasted longer.
  • I propose the "major Serbia" map in wich could be shown all the territories that were under Kingdom of Serbia role.

As solution, we could use the "pre-WWI" map, since it is an:

1- intermediate Serbia size map.

2- the most recent one, and the Serbia size map prior to it´s substitution by Kingdom of SHS.

3- the one wich shows Serbia in the WWI, that was the most important historical event of the Kingdom.

4- the most used one.

5- the one in wich the majority of different regions that composed the Kingdom are indicated (also heavy argument).

FkpCascais (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, the "pre WWI" map isn´t even the "intermediate Kingdom size map" since there are two bigger Kingdom maps: the one from 1913 (red one) and the one from 1918 (last Serbia one). FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that if map of 1882-1912 Serbia is used, then this one is much better for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1878.png Version proposed by user:Mladifilozof is just an outdated version of that map that he uploaded again because of unknown reason. 195.178.62.134 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It just should be another map used in the infobox, but for replacing it somwhere in the text is OK. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Standard practice is for extinct states to show how they were at the time of their disappearance. --Drivast (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can users stop taking out my information what contains valid justifiable sources. Kosova was after 1912 under Serb military occupation, it comes from Noel Malcolm and he is a reliable source and an historian. Kosova went from being Ottoman to joining Yugoslavia as one of it's counties next to Serbia and Croatia with the same rights as them. READ THE SOURCES. Human Rights Believer (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In his book "Kosovo - a short history" Noel Malcolm published a map which show Kosovo as part of Serbia in 1913, so your own source disapprove you. 195.178.62.134 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I'd like to know how/why is Noel Malcolm a reliable source. Additionally, he is not a historian (I don't why so many people mention that, just because he published 2 political-historical booklets)!
Kosovo didn't join Yugoslavia. It was brought into it by Serbia. Define "Serb military occupation", please. --Drivast (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The map showed annexed territory. It is a fact that Lithuania and Estonia were annexed by USSR but never legally a part of it, they were occupied by USSR military for 50 years. Maps still showed them in USSR. Kosova was occupied in 1912, never ever belonged to Serbia, it went to Yugoslavia as one of it's parts the same as Croatia, Bosnia and was outside of Serbia. Read Noel Malcolm for this. End of story. Human Rights Believer (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

KosovA? You´re talking about Noel Malcolm and you don´t know basic facts in history? Kosovo belonged to Yugoslavia because it was already before part of Serbia. Kosovo was allways (thruout Yugoslavia) part of Serbia.

"Kosova went from being Ottoman to joining Yugoslavia as one of it's counties next to Serbia and Croatia with the same rights as them."

  • "...KosovA..." What is that? Speak English, please.
  • "...from being Ottoman to joining Yugoslavia ..." ,what about the years in between? We don´t "eat" history years here.
  • "...joining Yugoslavia as one of it's counties..." , counties? are you sure what country you´re talking about?
  • "...next to Serbia and Croatia..." , next, in what sence? Physical? Kosovo doesn´t have borders with Croatia.
  • "...with the same rights as them..." , Human Rights? Yes, other institutional rights? No.

This is a record of wrong facts in one sentence only!

Oh, but here in the HRBelever last sentence we have more:

  • "...Lithuania and Estonia were annexed by USSR..." ,you never herd of Latvia?
  • "...Kosova was occupied in 1912..." ,you remeber that day, right? You were just going to school when, pam! Cetniks came.
  • "...never ever belonged to Serbia...", wow! not only never, but "never ever"!, you should be a song writter. :))))
  • "...End of story." , please don´t. This is fun! FkpCascais (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who have removed this image from the article? This is absolute correct image and it represents borders of the Kingdom of Serbia for the longest period of its existence (1882–1912).--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I did. This image was created from older version of map created by me and since I uploaded an improved version of this image which is already posted into this article, there is no reason that an older outdated version is posted into article as well. PANONIAN 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Montenegro

Why is it included in the list of kingdoms that preceded Kingdom of Serbia(of which the kingdom was created from), when Montenegro was annexed in the last year of Kingdom of Serbia's existence(1918), before it was incorporated in Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the Yugoslavia. So, Kingdom of Montenegro is NOT a predecessor to Kingdom of Serbia, and as such should be removed from the infobox. I know you'll question this with political arguments, but this is a simple matter of logic. Sideshow Bob 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask CrnaGora. He put it in the first place. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:PaxEquilibrium.

Balkan Wars

Why have you deleted almost the entire section on Balkan Wars without any public discussion? I will put this section back, and if you think that section is not neutral, put the proper template or discuss changes. You can not simply delete sourced sentences and sections.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The complete text is just unthru. Occupied, never fully incorporated,etc. It could easily say "liberated" since it was liberated from Ottoman role. Ans Serbs did lived there. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please first read the article on military dictatorship to establish what it is. In 1912, Kosovo was incorporated into Serbia and this was ratified at the Treaty of London in 1913. While some quarters dispute the legality, their arguments carry no weight on the encyclopaedia because Kosovo's division betwen Serbia and Montenegro was internationally recognised. To call it an "occupation" is wholly misleading because it is telling readers that after 1912, Kosovo was no different to Golan Heights today. Just as there are no maps of any kind which place Golan Heights within Israel, no maps - not even those from the Ottoman Empire - depicted the Vilayet of Kosovo as an exclave of itself during the 1912-28 period. Evlekis (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

NPOV

That is not NPOV. That was recognized territory of Serbia, not just temporary occupied land. -Tadija (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You claim that this article is biased. Can you please be more precise? What exactly is the problem? --Mladifilozof (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
When you place "temporary occupied territory", that is not neutral, even if it was so, and it wasn't. That was Kingdom of Serbia, not Serbia with occupied territories. It looks like that you are trying to show Serbia as a only negative side throughout Serbia's history. All your edits describe Serbia as fascist, occupying terrorists, with no other relevant historical data, that explained past and future of that actions. In infobox we have Kingdom of Serbia (1882 - 1918) and you are placing picture with "The Kingdom of Serbia 1882–1912". Historically watching, Serbia was one of the victors of WWI. Provisional Government of Albania was as you know unrecognized, so they were still regarded mostly as Ottoman Empire. All that Serbia did after WWI to Albania can be compared to Expulsion of Germans after World War II and deottomanisation of that territorys where Kingdom of Serbia expanded. Serbia lost about 850,000 people, more then a quarter of its prewar population. You will understand better with this. All of that must be placed in articles. Only then, it can be NPOV. Albania lost the war, Serbia was the winner. You know what happened to Serbian army during Albania crossing, in WWI? You should only place true and npov data in articles. Only then, you can write about "numerous atrocities" as you said, but with all other data. Noone will revert good article expansion, no matter on contents, if that data is NPOV. But you cannot write only one sided. That is unacceptable. Please, in Dimitrije Tucović article, first sentence is about Albanian suffer. Be serious, that sentence is completely unrelated to the work and life of Dimitrije Tucović. He was founder of the first Social Democratic Party of Serbia, social democrat, editor of Borba. That's just POV pushing, and degradation of Wikipedia. --Tadija (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I my contributions to this article, there was no such phrase as "temporary occupied territory". The rest of this controversy will be clarified one by one.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

disputed image

Few-days lasting front situation in 1918.

On wiki commons, this image has been disputed for months. In this article, it is the first image that appears in the paragraph on History of Serbia.

In the paragraph on Serbian history, maps should be listed chronologically (1878, 1912, 1913, 1915, 1918, etc.). Maybe it is ok to use this image among the others, but not out of its historical content. It was only few-days lasting situation not historical Serbian state borders!!

I saw many maps on Serbian history but I never saw this map. Why there is two of the this same image in the article?!?! Who proclaimed this image most relevant one to the History of Serbia? Who push this map into all and every article on Serbian history and why?

--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The disputed tag to this image in Wikimedia Commons was posted by abusive nationalistic sockpuppet and since the proofs for disputed nature of this image were not presented I will remove this tag. Also, this map show very important event for the history of Serbia, so for an event is important not only how long it lasted but also how important this event is for the history of one country. Also, your own ignorance and lack of historical education cannot be an ascuse for claims that something is wrong only because YOU never read about it. Try to visit library sometimes. Sorry for this description, but personal hate that you show towards everything related to Serbs and Serbia cannot come from an inteligent and educated person. PANONIAN 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The caption clearly stated "at its peak in 1918". So few days or few minutes shouldn't matter, it was placed simply to explain to the reader that during the time of the post 1882 kingdom, this was its extent. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
I think you want to find some nationalistic conspiracy by the questions you made, but, what is wrong with the map? The territory lasted shortly because it became part of a bigger country unit, but anyway, do you find illegal to show a map of a territory that lasted a short period of time? And if you didn´t saw it before, does that mean something? There is nothing wrong with the map because it represents a historical moment, and it is well explained. Again, why is disputed? FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, FkpCascais, I think that it is clear that User:Mladifilozof is nationalist himself and that his "concern" for Serbian nationalism is only cover under which he spread his own nationalism - his surname Pavlica is in fact common among Croats, so it is clear to me who is he and what he doing here. And answer to the question why he do not like this map is that this map does not support Greater Croatian nationalistic territorial pretensions towards Vojvodina.PANONIAN 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing disputed with this image. Leave it there per Евлекис, and per it's relevancy. And image is in article on Serbian history only per it's importance. That is one of the main principles of Wikipedia. --Tadijataking 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this image really so important for the History of Serbia? I never saw it in any historical atlas or book. Why this image is the first one in the text? Maps should be listed chronologically, so this one should be in the last paragraph.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should read more books and then you will see similar maps published there. However, even you cannot deny that you read books which are containing info that Montenegro, Vojvodina and Syrmia united with Serbia in 1918 and it is obvious that this map reflect that data. As for importance for Serbian history, map is important because it show time when territory of present-day Serbia was first time united under Serbian administration (not under Ottoman, Roman or what ever...). PANONIAN 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.. agree 100% with Panonian, but regarding the text, is this really a "front situation", isn´t it maybe more adequat to say "short living state with recognised and/or unrecognised territories that proclaimed union with Serbia"... see the point? Of course, I maybe wrong... maybe they were all recognised (i just have doubts about Vojvodina and Syrmia int.recognition official status)... FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not "front situation", but post-war situation after armistice was signed. As for international recognition, Serbian and Yugoslav unification was internationally recognized, but one year later, in 1919. During the whole process of unification and international recognition, Vojvodina, Syrmia and Montenegro united with Serbia, then Serbia (which included these 3 territories) united with the State of SCS to form the Kingdom of SCS (Yugoslavia) and then, one year later, in 1919, Kingdom of SCS (which included all these territories) was internationally recognized. So, this map show only part of this whole process. PANONIAN 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As for Vojvodina (or Banat, Bačka and Baranja), it had its own government in this time, but that government was not recognized even by Serbia. Both, Serbian government and international community recognized Vojvodinian unification with Serbia, but nobody recognized Vojvodinian de facto government. However, territory of Banat, Bačka and Baranja presented in this map is a territory that was governed by Vojvodinian de facto government. PANONIAN 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are forgetting to notice something: this map shows both the borders of Serbia before World War I (in blue) and borders after WWI. So, this is like "two in one". It shows how Serbia looked both before and after WWI, not just after. I agree that we should place maps in chronological order, but this map is even better because it shows two periods of time on the same map, so one can compare. I don't see any problem with that. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So, resumingly, the text is quite inadequate, and any of you should please feel free to correct it in that sence, you´ll obviously have my support. I can´t help much couse I´m using my resources in some different "objectives" wright now... :)
I really hope nobody is going to make further objections because despite the map showing quite a fortunate moment for Serbia and its history, in which it acomplished to unify some historical regions and fulfill some centuries long aspirations, having in mind the number of victims and all the precedent situation in the WWI, it can hardly be considered a "fortunate" moment. FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Population

OK, I'll leave this question here. Didn't population drop dramatically during WWI? I'd assume the figures would be accurate for 1910-14, but after that there was probably a lot more fluctuation in the numbers. Biruitorul 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

There are already a number of maps on this page, but a map showing more clearly the location of the Kingdom within Europe would be nice. - 52 Pickup 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, hope it helps.--Еstavisti 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern states to occupy former lands of the Kingdom of Serbia

The volatile atmosphere of World War I coupled with Serbia's almost immediate entry into the first Yugoslav in 1918 means that there is some doubt as to the territories of some regions having been internationally recognised as Serbian for the period. From the beginning of 1913 Serbia did have control of much of modern-day Albania, but the finalisation of Kosovo was dependent on Serbia, Montenegro and Greece withdrawing from what would become an independent Albania. Following World War I, Serbia controlled Banat, Bačka and Baranja which placed both Timișoara (Romania) and Pécs (Hungary) in the kingdom. As for modern-day Croatia, it is plausible but I am unsure as to which towns or area may have been controlled by Serbia.

As such I am unsure where I stand on the matter of whether these countries should be stated in the infobox. I am unsure also whether the editors constantly removing the states are doing so on "technical grounds" because they harbour a grudge with the "banned" individual to re-insert them, or whether it really is policy to not include those lands based on the logistical matters of the time. If the maps are correct, then there is no valid argument to suggest that the Kingdom having controlled areas of the said states is unsourced. As such, I favour accuracy but we need to agree on a principle here. Comments please. --OJ (TALK) 10:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Montenegro and Serbia were client states of Russia

I posted this information that has a reliable source, but it has been repeatedly removed.

A client state can be a legally independent state that is recognized as being under strong political influence of another state.

I used a reliable source published by the reputable Oxford University.

Here is what the source says: "Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, Montenegro had assumed the status of a virtual Russian protectorate, with its port of Kotor serving as a base of support for the Russian Black Sea Fleet during its forays into the Mediterranean Sea. Serbia itself became a Russian client state by virtue of the two countries' anti-Turkish interests, but without in the end the political and territorial gains expected from the Russian alliance."--70.26.113.85 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.balcanica.rs/balcanica/uploaded/balcanica/balcanica%2048/07%20Batakovic.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Sadko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed reliable sources three times[1][2][3] already and is claiming that

  • Daskalovski, Židas (2003). "Claims to Kosovo: Nationalism and Self-determination". In Bieber, Florian; Daskalovski, Židas (eds.). Understanding the war in Kosovo. London: Psychology Press. ISBN 9780714653914. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) is "biased and nationalistic". Aside from the fact that you can't remove WP:RS, there's a BLP violation in the claim that a contemporary author is "biased and nationalistic". Time to get some admin oversight.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not remove it three times, stop making unsupported claims.
Could you please show me that the work was peer-reviewed? Editors of that magazine are NGO owners, not historians. Do check on that, be my guest.
Calling a city with dominant Serbian population "Albanian territory" is biased and nationalistic. That is my claim. Do you have sources to prove that Niš or Leskovac ever was "Albanian territory"? That is your job, fellow editor. Maybe in the era of Illyrians, oh wait, that is just another theory and not a fact. Is it possible that you do not see a problem with that? It's due time for neutrality check, please see WP:NEUTRAL.
I can not claim the same for the whole work as I have no access to it. Lear and read about WP:DUEWEIGHT before inserting random information of troubled times of minority groups in the article. Bunch of sentnece was placed randomly and it's disrupting the pleasure of reading. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
What NGO are you talking about? I have specifically added Zidas Daskalovski (2003) and Stefanović, Djordje (2005). "Seeing the Albanians through Serbian eyes: The Inventors of the Tradition of Intolerance and their Critics, 1804–1939"

They write that The Serbian-Ottoman wars 1877/1878, followed mass and forceful movements of Albanians from their native territories. By the end of 1878 there were 60,000 Albanian refugees in Macedonia and 60,000-70,000 in the villayet of Kosova. At the 1878 Congress of Berlin, the Albanian territories of Niš, Prokuple, Kuršumlia, Vranje and Leskovac were given to Serbia. (Daskalovski) and In 1878, following a series of Christian uprisings against the Ottoman Empire, the Russo-Turkish War, and the Berlin Congress, Serbia gained complete independence, as well as new territories in the Toplica and Kosanica regions adjacent to Kosovo. These two regions had a sizable Albanian population which the Serbian government decided to deport. (..) Despite some voices of dissent, the Serbian regime 'encouraged' about 71,000 Muslims, including 49,000 Albanians, 'to leave'. The regime then gradually settled Serbs and Montenegrins in these territories. Prior to 1878, the Serbs comprised not more than one half of the population of Nis, the largest city in the region; by 1884 the Serbian share rose to 80 per cent. The 1878 cleansing was a turning point because it was the first gross and large-scale injustice committed by Serbian forces against the Albanians. From that point onward, both ethnic groups had recent experiences of massive victimization that could be used to justify 'revenge' attacks. (Stefanovic) --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about the one source I removed, added by Mikola22, which you presented as a "proof" for my behaviour. Was it peer reviewed? Could we have a direct answer please?
Thank you for giving us the full quote, now we can see that a lot of context was taken away, which is bordering with WP:TENDENTIOUS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
What? You've done three reverts, you have removed and messed up the sources, while claiming that they're "biased and nationalistic".--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
No direct answer, I see, only aspirations. Please accept that somebody is not agreeing with you. Thanks, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you agree with me - it's your opinion vs. bibliography. You should also reflect on your own attitude towards these events Expulsion_of_the_Albanians,_1877–1878#Legacy. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maynard (2009): Using secondary sources, we establish that there have been Albanians living in the area of Nish for at least 500 years, that the Ottoman Empire controlled the area from the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries which led to many Albanians converting to Islam, that the Muslim Albanians of Nish were forced to leave in 1878, and that at that time most of these Nishan Albanians migrated south into Kosovo, although some went to Skopje in Macedonia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't say anything about numbers. Anyway, there is a problem. There is one sentence that states 150,000 were expelled between 1830 and "wars of the 1870s", and another that states 50,000-60,000 were expelled after 1878. This is extremely confusing to the reader. The 50,000-60,000 are clearly not in addition to the 150,000, but the articles makes it seem that way. Instead of two conflicting sentences, this should be condensed into a single sentence per WP:SS and so as to avoid confusion. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
They're describing two different events: Pre-1878 and in 1877-1878.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Wars of the 1870s" clearly includes the war of 1877-1878. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"The outcome of this policy was that since the beginning of the war in 1876, according to, Braha and Brestovci, about 150,000 Albanians living there had been gradually expelled from the Serb state or emigrated from there - read the chapter.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It would have been better if you had quoted the source faithfully when you added the material. Fixed it for you. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If you mean the "or emigrated" part, sure, maybe I overlooked it because at the end of the day the difference between expulsion and "migration" is largely legal. Just as I don't treat Afghani, Syrian and Iraqi people who come to the west as "migrants", but as refugees, I don't conceptualize such a movement as migratory either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in how you "conceptualize" anything (and I doubt anyone else is either). I am here to make sure the sources are used in an intellectually honest manner. Khirurg (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned it and I gave you a reply: I did a cpe, checked the source, this minor difference didn't come to my attention and I proceeded and you also made your change and it was accepted. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1140181032"