This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I found the Lika-Senj and Zadar county population numbers for 1991 at http://www.citypopulation.de/Kroatien.html -- the region of Lika which is split between those two counties (mostly in the former) can't have had much more than 100,000 inhabitants at the time, and yet Igor has the audacity to claim that a 100,000 "were chased from" Lika in 1995. This would be sad if it wasn't funny... -- Shallot 23:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mir Harven, you probably shouldn't rip that much out of the page just because Igor was twisting it. Although I'm not sure whether much of the article is specifically pertinent to the title, I'm pretty sure it will become edit war material... -- Shallot 00:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A question if someone can help me. I have heard of Nikola Tesla, and coming from Canada, I always thought him to be American. am sure that most Europeans know that over the great lake people maintain their identity as well as being Americans, we have for example American Jews, Irish Americans, Silesian Americans, Occitan Americans etc. What I want to know is: if Tesla was from modern-day Croatia? Why does it say he is Serb? I mean both nations are homogenous in that they have routes in the Slavs, I thought that Croatia was the western bit and Serbia was the southern-eastern bit. Can someone elaborate please? User:AlfredG
Thank you Joy. You nearly explained it to me but I still fail to understand entirely how the system works. Let me give you an example. In parts of Finland, you have ethnic Swedes. They and the Finns live in the same towns and have done so for hundreds of years having maintained their identity. Ethnicly Finns and Swedes are completely different, but Serbs and Croats as I have understood from ALL sources are hybrid nations, in other words homogenous, descended from the Slavs who occupied the region from AD 555 onwards.
If we take Zagreb as an example: supposing you have a street full of Serbs whose ancestors settled when the Slavs arrived - adjacent to them you have a street full of Croats. How does one distinguish Serb from Croat? ie.how do you point to 'Ivan' (fictional example) and say 'oh he aint Croat, he is Serb because Tesla was his great-uncle?' etc. Please explain this to me if you can. User:AlfredG
oops I forgot - I don't think 'citizenship' was quite an issue in those days as it is now. I know that the region was under Austria-Hungary but that didn't mean nothing beyond some identity document for those who were neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Take me, I am a British citizen and no longer Canadian but I can only ever see myself as Canadian... anyhow, ignore this last statement, I just want to know the above. User:AlfredG 27/08/05
Almost there
So was this why Tesla was Serb? Just for being Orthodox? By the way, I did know a lad from Belgrade called Ivan; here at this computer firm where I work there are lots of Slavic people from various countries, many from Bulgaria and quite a few Ivans! So I really don't think this variation is strictly Croatian even if another term doers exist among Serbians. Please tell me what you can Joy. User:AlfredG 28-08-05
I am going to revert all edits until the arguement is brough here to the talk page. HolyRomanEmperor 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Alfred I would be glad to explain you what is this all about. The inhabitants of the Lika region are not Serbs in the meaning of Serbian Serbs. After the liberation of Croatia from the Turkish invaders Lika, before the Turkish arrival 100% domicile Croatian, was colonised with some domicile Croats who kept their Lika tradition during the occupation, and the other part of colonisators were the so called "Vlasi" (in english it would be "Vlahs" i suppose...) They came from eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe in one single goal - to save their lives from the Turks. They brought orthodox religion beacuse eastern Europe was orthodox since 1054.A.D. as your probably know. The Drina river, the natural border beetween Bosnia and Serbia was the line that divided two Empires bak in 395.A.D. and so it was decided for it to be the religion border in 1054. But when Turks came it was all, I allow mself to say, "messed up". Many nations fled from them and when they came to Lika there was a variety of nations among them but the domicle Croats and Austrians decided to call them "Vlasi". The credibility of that term is to be doubted. So, the western part of Lika was inhabited with Croats, so the immigrants there accepted Roman Catholic religion. With religion they got names such as Ivan (and Joy told u right, Ivan really is a name common to Russians, Bulgarians, Ukraines and Croats, Serbs have the mentioned different variant - Jovan) and Josip. Those name are not Croatian nor Serbian. Those are Jewish Biblical names. Ivan as John and Josip as Joseph. Serbs are not common to names like that and the reason is unknown. Although there were Serbs called Josip and still are, and Ivan as well. In example, the male name Josip was very popular in whole ex-Yugoslavia after the year 1945. beacuse it was the name of Croat, and later Yugoslav partisan leader who liberated Yugoslavia. I've gone too far from the subject. The eastern part of Lika, however, remained mostly orthodox. But inhabited with orthodox Vlahs NOT Serbs. In the late 17th century there was more than one migration of the Serbs from Serbia. Some of them went to Hungary, some to Slavonia(part of Croatia as well) and some of them went to Bosnia. The Turkish empire became more tolerant to other religions in that time so the Serbian orthodox priest were given the opportunity to spread their religion in that whole area. Remember, it was Bosnia back then, not Croatia(I am talking about eastern Lika). It became Croatia in 1791.A.D. The point and very diference of orthodox religion from catholic is in it's connection to the state. The state of Serbia had wide authonomy within the Turkish Empire and even marriage connections to the Turkish throne.(in example Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich was a Serbian boy(from Serbia) converted to islam and taken to the Turkish Army, the so-called "blood tax". He led the attack on Sziget in Hungary in the 16th century. So he was a real hotshot among the Turks but not a true Turk. He knew that and appointed his brother to be the archiepiscope of The Serbian Orthodox Church in that time. Imagine that.) So the Serb church had clearly expansionistic ambitions. Areas inhabited with Orthodox population was the ideal ground for them to spread their state. Now, You will probably ask how can they be spreading their state. Easily. I've already said that the Orthodox Church is connected and addicted to it's state. Take it your family fled from Romania in 15th century and migrated to eastern Lika. It would took them about 100 years( so at least 3 generations) to complete the journey. You come in the 16th century. You have no state. You dont even remember where you originated(people in the 15th century didn't even have an ethnic choice. They didn't know who they were. It's not like they had a TV back then and watched the news). So, the people were very common and they had traditions and religion. Serb priests(from Serbia and Bosnia) came in the late 17th century(as the article says) and started to convert them to The Serbian Orthodox religion (or the then-so-called "eastern religion"). They were then connected to the state of Serbia. But only in that matter. You see, their tradition and last names is nothing like the ones in Serbian state. Even the language they speak(which is 95% similar to Croatian, the accent, everything...) If you start a search of last names in Serbia, you won't find anyone last-named Tesla. It is a specific Lika last name. But even there, a Lika Serb is recognised among the Serbian Serbs. Language and last name differs them. Tesla's father was an Orthodox Serb priest called Milutin. It is not a strictly Serbian name as Ivan is not strictly Croatian. However the chances of someone called Milutin to be a Serb are about, I'd say, 90 to 95 %. On the other hand, the name Nikola is about as common within Serbs as it is within Croats. But here as everywhere else where there are Christians people get their names in Church as children. Some people have one name of their own, and one that they got in Church. But in history, the name you got in Church as a baby used to be your name until you died, with some possible deviations as in ex. you converting to islam in medieval Bosnia.
Milan Babic a former leader of Serbs in Croatia, testified about establishing Greater Serbia. More info
The Charges
The Indictment charges Milan Babic on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) with:
one count of crimes against humanity (persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds punishable under Articles 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal), and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war (murder; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; and destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion punishable under Articles 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Guilty plea On 27 January 2004, Milan Babic entered a guilty plea on Count one of the Indictment, namely persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds as a crime against humanity (see Press Release No. 818). On 28 January 2004, the Trial Chamber accepted the Plea Agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence. It found Milan Babic guilty of persecutions as a crime against humanity and added that the crime of persecutions was committed within the objectives of the Joint Criminal Enterprise, of which Milan Babic was a co-perpetrator (see Press Release No. 819). The Prosecution recommended a sentence of no more than 11 years and the Defence made no specific recommendation.
Sentencing Judgement On 29 June 2004, the Trial Chamber sentenced Milan Babic to a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled to credit for 211 days served in detention prior to his sentencing (see Press Release No. 861). -- Emir Arven 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice you could state the source where you got that information. Additionally, claiming that Serbs joined in hopes of forming a Greater Serbia is POV-ed generalising. Many (most, perhaps) did that because of two resons: 1) unagreeing with the secessionist and separatist tendencies of Croatia and 2) self-defence against growing Croatian (Greater) nationalism 3) I guess that some had also dreams of a unified Serbia, but generalising is simply overstreched. HolyRomanEmperor 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Read the article on plea bargain, then laugh hard at yourself. Babic was not proven guilty, nor he admitted that he is guilty. He bargained with the prosecution to plead guilty and be convicted for one of the charges, while the prosecution dropped harsher charges held against him. Thus his plea has exactly zero value to us. Related to this, Biljana Plavsic f.e. admitted that she lied in her plea. Nikola 12:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A good source on the Serbia's plan for annexation of parts of Croatia and the creation of Greater Serbia is the testimony of Milan Babić as a prosecution witness against Milošević at the ICTY in the fall of 2002: 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day. -- Elephantus 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
ICTY is as credible as any other source, especially when it comes to details like these. -- Elephantus 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A bunch of historic info coming right up... HolyRomanEmperor 09:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
...like User:Elephantus said. But why would Yugoslavia (Serbia) withdraw from the war early, in 1992 then. What's more, indeed there was such such thing; but it was specifically meant for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem; an idea that spanned across the (mythic?) Milošević-Tuđman-Holbrooke_Agreement; and fade out completle between 1995 and 1998... Still, it aint Lika... -- HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
...Nikola, I am a Croatian and a Serbian Frontiersman and there is no one that knows the Croatian/Serbian Frontier history more than me (as you already saw). Why won't you trust me? -- HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Because I was planning to put the oppression of Serbian ethnic population in Croatia, the number of Medak assassinated civilians and because I am interested in truth and compromise, not nationalism. -- HolyRomanEmperor 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
When I write something; Elephantus is bound to show up and delete (as he usually does to my contirubtions :) I judged this only by the way that he expresses severe nationalist tendencies. I would much rather write a truthful or at least a nearly-truthful article and feed his nationalist hunger than fight pointless edit wars!
By the way, watch your language, you're close to Personal Insults. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, fine... I'll leave Lika to be destroyed in a campaign of scorched earth between you and Elephantus. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Elephantus, I have no problem with your rv, but I made many obvious grammatical fixes after the controversial edit made by somebody else, and they have now been lost. Such poor English really reflects badly on all of us - maybe you could look at my edits in the first part and transfer them over? - Adam Mathias 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey kids, I think it's time for some mediation. This edit war gets old, and besides, if it weren't for the fact that nobody outside of Yugoslavia has ever heard of Lika, somebody would have definitly cited all of you for breaking Wikiquette. I would suggest that next time you make an edit, think about making it something the other side can also live with. Also, try and use the following rule: if somebody can tell from my edits whether I am a Serb or a Croat, then maybe there is a problem. Instead remove things that are irrational and add things that are informative and cited, as if you were an international observer (though they have their share of sh**). Or you can try imagining the article with the words Serb and Croat switched, and then ask yourself if your edit is in any way bombastic. Also ask yourself if your conduct on Wikipedia is the virtual parallel of the conduct in real life that perpetuates all these problems anyways. Of course, it's much better to type angrily at each other than to shoot angrily at each other, but it's still kind of ridiculous and should probably take place on this page rather than in the actual article. Adam Mathias 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I give up... Adam Mathias 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too. :) I am putting the entire sentence - out! -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.
The first traces are the Croatian- Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.
The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.
The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.
It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.
In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.
That's it.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.
The first traces are the Croatian- Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.
The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.
The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.
It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.
In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.
That's it.
I'm aware that some Croatian Serbs had Belgrade do most of their reading (and thinking) for them in 1990 and 1991, but I thought things had improved somewhat in the meantime. -- Elephantus 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it's hard, now that they have no choice bu to live in Belgrade. :)
Let's take it from the top now:
The 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia:
The 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia:
Maybe you can clarify how did you get that there was no change in the Serbs' status? -- HolyRomanEmperor 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Mistake, well, correct me. How would the translation sound correctly?
Let me make a comparison. Presently, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs are constitutional nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In the Republic of Macedonia, two nations are constitutional: Macedonians and Albanians. The others are national minorities.
It's the following: Република Македонија е држава на македонскиот народ,како и на албанците кои живеат vo nea,и на останатите народи во неa како што се срби,турци,власи итн...
You can see how the Albanians are upgraded from a national minority to a constitutional nation. Roughly, in the same manner as Serbs were degrated from a constitutional nation to a national minority. -- HolyRomanEmperor 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to make less personal attacks and more explainations and comparisons. You might also know that people who think that they are always right aren't necessarily correct.
You should also learn this: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi... -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this fact that Elephantus deleted, Eleph, please see Human_rights_in_Croatia -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The text under the picture of Tesla smells like a POV (some may think that Isaac Newton is the greatest scientist of them all). It should be more neutral. KNewman 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why isnt there Geography section?
I just read the Constitution of Croatia. I noticed that Elephantus was wrong (I hope he didn't intentionally lie) about the Constitution's text. Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Mađara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, So, there is no "inih" and Serbs are definately a national minority. -- PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I some single nation in some, let's say imagined state, made 12.65% of general population and some other single nation made 86%. 1.35% would be some other nations and people that are not nationally aware. Let's say those 12.65 divide in to twho groups. One group made of 8% that decided to from their state within this imagined state and other group made of 4.65% total population that decides to live as common and loyal citizens of that imagined state. The 86% group among with the 4.65% suffers heavy bombardment from the 8% group because they have no weapons to defend theirselves. The 8% group sistematically annihilates 35% of that imagined country's territory and claims 18.5% of it's territory. The annihilations take place every day - daytime/nighttime. It doesnt matter to them. They just want to defend themselves although nobody is attacking them. From areas that they find theirs to have there are many unarmed members of the 86 and 4.65% groups. They are certainly in the way so they should find home in "their" country. So it lasts like that for 5 long years. Then, all of a sudden, the joined 90.65% group tired of being abused by a MINORITY OF 8% decides to strike back. They dont want them in their back yard. It is all over in 4 days. No more 8% group.
So if someone asks you - is 12.65% of, lets say metaphorically, correct test answers to get a positive test score, what would u say? Hm...we could maybe talk about 40% with a lower criteria, but 12.65% is an F-. Someone who gets F in a school full o A graders is clearly insigniicant. Maybe this is not the best way to compare, but anyone who looks at this imagined state from some other far away imagind state hardly gets how a minority could possibly abuse all other. Weapons embargo could maybe do the trick.
Mrfgh... Are you trying to justify changing the constituional status? 'cause that's not even the point here. :) And the majority abused the minority, whereas that type of Constitution prevented the majority from abusing the minority. Of course, many (most of the world) would agree that such a guarrantee through the Constituion is needless, and that the minority (Serbs) aren't jeoperdized - however, they would all be wrong - as it turned precisely like everyone feared from 1945 - so yes, that's needed. -- PaxEquilibrium 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Jankovic not a Serb surname? What was Stojan then - an Orthodox Croat? An Orthodox Croat whose descendents became Serbia's politicians? An Orthodox Croat whose "Tower of Jankovic Stojan" was destroyed by Croatian armed forces during the war because it was a "symbol of Serbdom" in the northern Dalmatian hinterland? -- PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Just listen to yourself.
I have already discussed this on your talk page, but wiki isn't your personal website to add whatever you wish. Your edits are blatantly and shamelessly inserting serbian extras into the page. Who on earth cares who the most important Serb Uskoks were? Not even the famous Croat ones are mentioned, and they are the vast majority of the real Uskoks. And I have no idea why the Metropolitanate of Karlovci is so important here, but attempt to explain if you are capable. Lika was part of the military frontier, but those census are just that--for the military frontier of lika, not Lika itself. i don't really have a problem with this part, just explain why it is relevent in the Lika page (besides for Serb users trying to stake a claim that they were some "majority" in Lika). -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I found the Lika-Senj and Zadar county population numbers for 1991 at http://www.citypopulation.de/Kroatien.html -- the region of Lika which is split between those two counties (mostly in the former) can't have had much more than 100,000 inhabitants at the time, and yet Igor has the audacity to claim that a 100,000 "were chased from" Lika in 1995. This would be sad if it wasn't funny... -- Shallot 23:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mir Harven, you probably shouldn't rip that much out of the page just because Igor was twisting it. Although I'm not sure whether much of the article is specifically pertinent to the title, I'm pretty sure it will become edit war material... -- Shallot 00:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A question if someone can help me. I have heard of Nikola Tesla, and coming from Canada, I always thought him to be American. am sure that most Europeans know that over the great lake people maintain their identity as well as being Americans, we have for example American Jews, Irish Americans, Silesian Americans, Occitan Americans etc. What I want to know is: if Tesla was from modern-day Croatia? Why does it say he is Serb? I mean both nations are homogenous in that they have routes in the Slavs, I thought that Croatia was the western bit and Serbia was the southern-eastern bit. Can someone elaborate please? User:AlfredG
Thank you Joy. You nearly explained it to me but I still fail to understand entirely how the system works. Let me give you an example. In parts of Finland, you have ethnic Swedes. They and the Finns live in the same towns and have done so for hundreds of years having maintained their identity. Ethnicly Finns and Swedes are completely different, but Serbs and Croats as I have understood from ALL sources are hybrid nations, in other words homogenous, descended from the Slavs who occupied the region from AD 555 onwards.
If we take Zagreb as an example: supposing you have a street full of Serbs whose ancestors settled when the Slavs arrived - adjacent to them you have a street full of Croats. How does one distinguish Serb from Croat? ie.how do you point to 'Ivan' (fictional example) and say 'oh he aint Croat, he is Serb because Tesla was his great-uncle?' etc. Please explain this to me if you can. User:AlfredG
oops I forgot - I don't think 'citizenship' was quite an issue in those days as it is now. I know that the region was under Austria-Hungary but that didn't mean nothing beyond some identity document for those who were neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Take me, I am a British citizen and no longer Canadian but I can only ever see myself as Canadian... anyhow, ignore this last statement, I just want to know the above. User:AlfredG 27/08/05
Almost there
So was this why Tesla was Serb? Just for being Orthodox? By the way, I did know a lad from Belgrade called Ivan; here at this computer firm where I work there are lots of Slavic people from various countries, many from Bulgaria and quite a few Ivans! So I really don't think this variation is strictly Croatian even if another term doers exist among Serbians. Please tell me what you can Joy. User:AlfredG 28-08-05
I am going to revert all edits until the arguement is brough here to the talk page. HolyRomanEmperor 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Alfred I would be glad to explain you what is this all about. The inhabitants of the Lika region are not Serbs in the meaning of Serbian Serbs. After the liberation of Croatia from the Turkish invaders Lika, before the Turkish arrival 100% domicile Croatian, was colonised with some domicile Croats who kept their Lika tradition during the occupation, and the other part of colonisators were the so called "Vlasi" (in english it would be "Vlahs" i suppose...) They came from eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe in one single goal - to save their lives from the Turks. They brought orthodox religion beacuse eastern Europe was orthodox since 1054.A.D. as your probably know. The Drina river, the natural border beetween Bosnia and Serbia was the line that divided two Empires bak in 395.A.D. and so it was decided for it to be the religion border in 1054. But when Turks came it was all, I allow mself to say, "messed up". Many nations fled from them and when they came to Lika there was a variety of nations among them but the domicle Croats and Austrians decided to call them "Vlasi". The credibility of that term is to be doubted. So, the western part of Lika was inhabited with Croats, so the immigrants there accepted Roman Catholic religion. With religion they got names such as Ivan (and Joy told u right, Ivan really is a name common to Russians, Bulgarians, Ukraines and Croats, Serbs have the mentioned different variant - Jovan) and Josip. Those name are not Croatian nor Serbian. Those are Jewish Biblical names. Ivan as John and Josip as Joseph. Serbs are not common to names like that and the reason is unknown. Although there were Serbs called Josip and still are, and Ivan as well. In example, the male name Josip was very popular in whole ex-Yugoslavia after the year 1945. beacuse it was the name of Croat, and later Yugoslav partisan leader who liberated Yugoslavia. I've gone too far from the subject. The eastern part of Lika, however, remained mostly orthodox. But inhabited with orthodox Vlahs NOT Serbs. In the late 17th century there was more than one migration of the Serbs from Serbia. Some of them went to Hungary, some to Slavonia(part of Croatia as well) and some of them went to Bosnia. The Turkish empire became more tolerant to other religions in that time so the Serbian orthodox priest were given the opportunity to spread their religion in that whole area. Remember, it was Bosnia back then, not Croatia(I am talking about eastern Lika). It became Croatia in 1791.A.D. The point and very diference of orthodox religion from catholic is in it's connection to the state. The state of Serbia had wide authonomy within the Turkish Empire and even marriage connections to the Turkish throne.(in example Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich was a Serbian boy(from Serbia) converted to islam and taken to the Turkish Army, the so-called "blood tax". He led the attack on Sziget in Hungary in the 16th century. So he was a real hotshot among the Turks but not a true Turk. He knew that and appointed his brother to be the archiepiscope of The Serbian Orthodox Church in that time. Imagine that.) So the Serb church had clearly expansionistic ambitions. Areas inhabited with Orthodox population was the ideal ground for them to spread their state. Now, You will probably ask how can they be spreading their state. Easily. I've already said that the Orthodox Church is connected and addicted to it's state. Take it your family fled from Romania in 15th century and migrated to eastern Lika. It would took them about 100 years( so at least 3 generations) to complete the journey. You come in the 16th century. You have no state. You dont even remember where you originated(people in the 15th century didn't even have an ethnic choice. They didn't know who they were. It's not like they had a TV back then and watched the news). So, the people were very common and they had traditions and religion. Serb priests(from Serbia and Bosnia) came in the late 17th century(as the article says) and started to convert them to The Serbian Orthodox religion (or the then-so-called "eastern religion"). They were then connected to the state of Serbia. But only in that matter. You see, their tradition and last names is nothing like the ones in Serbian state. Even the language they speak(which is 95% similar to Croatian, the accent, everything...) If you start a search of last names in Serbia, you won't find anyone last-named Tesla. It is a specific Lika last name. But even there, a Lika Serb is recognised among the Serbian Serbs. Language and last name differs them. Tesla's father was an Orthodox Serb priest called Milutin. It is not a strictly Serbian name as Ivan is not strictly Croatian. However the chances of someone called Milutin to be a Serb are about, I'd say, 90 to 95 %. On the other hand, the name Nikola is about as common within Serbs as it is within Croats. But here as everywhere else where there are Christians people get their names in Church as children. Some people have one name of their own, and one that they got in Church. But in history, the name you got in Church as a baby used to be your name until you died, with some possible deviations as in ex. you converting to islam in medieval Bosnia.
Milan Babic a former leader of Serbs in Croatia, testified about establishing Greater Serbia. More info
The Charges
The Indictment charges Milan Babic on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) with:
one count of crimes against humanity (persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds punishable under Articles 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal), and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war (murder; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; and destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion punishable under Articles 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Guilty plea On 27 January 2004, Milan Babic entered a guilty plea on Count one of the Indictment, namely persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds as a crime against humanity (see Press Release No. 818). On 28 January 2004, the Trial Chamber accepted the Plea Agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence. It found Milan Babic guilty of persecutions as a crime against humanity and added that the crime of persecutions was committed within the objectives of the Joint Criminal Enterprise, of which Milan Babic was a co-perpetrator (see Press Release No. 819). The Prosecution recommended a sentence of no more than 11 years and the Defence made no specific recommendation.
Sentencing Judgement On 29 June 2004, the Trial Chamber sentenced Milan Babic to a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled to credit for 211 days served in detention prior to his sentencing (see Press Release No. 861). -- Emir Arven 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice you could state the source where you got that information. Additionally, claiming that Serbs joined in hopes of forming a Greater Serbia is POV-ed generalising. Many (most, perhaps) did that because of two resons: 1) unagreeing with the secessionist and separatist tendencies of Croatia and 2) self-defence against growing Croatian (Greater) nationalism 3) I guess that some had also dreams of a unified Serbia, but generalising is simply overstreched. HolyRomanEmperor 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Read the article on plea bargain, then laugh hard at yourself. Babic was not proven guilty, nor he admitted that he is guilty. He bargained with the prosecution to plead guilty and be convicted for one of the charges, while the prosecution dropped harsher charges held against him. Thus his plea has exactly zero value to us. Related to this, Biljana Plavsic f.e. admitted that she lied in her plea. Nikola 12:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A good source on the Serbia's plan for annexation of parts of Croatia and the creation of Greater Serbia is the testimony of Milan Babić as a prosecution witness against Milošević at the ICTY in the fall of 2002: 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day. -- Elephantus 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
ICTY is as credible as any other source, especially when it comes to details like these. -- Elephantus 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A bunch of historic info coming right up... HolyRomanEmperor 09:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
...like User:Elephantus said. But why would Yugoslavia (Serbia) withdraw from the war early, in 1992 then. What's more, indeed there was such such thing; but it was specifically meant for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem; an idea that spanned across the (mythic?) Milošević-Tuđman-Holbrooke_Agreement; and fade out completle between 1995 and 1998... Still, it aint Lika... -- HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
...Nikola, I am a Croatian and a Serbian Frontiersman and there is no one that knows the Croatian/Serbian Frontier history more than me (as you already saw). Why won't you trust me? -- HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Because I was planning to put the oppression of Serbian ethnic population in Croatia, the number of Medak assassinated civilians and because I am interested in truth and compromise, not nationalism. -- HolyRomanEmperor 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
When I write something; Elephantus is bound to show up and delete (as he usually does to my contirubtions :) I judged this only by the way that he expresses severe nationalist tendencies. I would much rather write a truthful or at least a nearly-truthful article and feed his nationalist hunger than fight pointless edit wars!
By the way, watch your language, you're close to Personal Insults. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, fine... I'll leave Lika to be destroyed in a campaign of scorched earth between you and Elephantus. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Elephantus, I have no problem with your rv, but I made many obvious grammatical fixes after the controversial edit made by somebody else, and they have now been lost. Such poor English really reflects badly on all of us - maybe you could look at my edits in the first part and transfer them over? - Adam Mathias 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey kids, I think it's time for some mediation. This edit war gets old, and besides, if it weren't for the fact that nobody outside of Yugoslavia has ever heard of Lika, somebody would have definitly cited all of you for breaking Wikiquette. I would suggest that next time you make an edit, think about making it something the other side can also live with. Also, try and use the following rule: if somebody can tell from my edits whether I am a Serb or a Croat, then maybe there is a problem. Instead remove things that are irrational and add things that are informative and cited, as if you were an international observer (though they have their share of sh**). Or you can try imagining the article with the words Serb and Croat switched, and then ask yourself if your edit is in any way bombastic. Also ask yourself if your conduct on Wikipedia is the virtual parallel of the conduct in real life that perpetuates all these problems anyways. Of course, it's much better to type angrily at each other than to shoot angrily at each other, but it's still kind of ridiculous and should probably take place on this page rather than in the actual article. Adam Mathias 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I give up... Adam Mathias 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too. :) I am putting the entire sentence - out! -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.
The first traces are the Croatian- Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.
The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.
The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.
It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.
In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.
That's it.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.
The first traces are the Croatian- Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.
The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.
The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.
It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.
In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.
That's it.
I'm aware that some Croatian Serbs had Belgrade do most of their reading (and thinking) for them in 1990 and 1991, but I thought things had improved somewhat in the meantime. -- Elephantus 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it's hard, now that they have no choice bu to live in Belgrade. :)
Let's take it from the top now:
The 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia:
The 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia:
Maybe you can clarify how did you get that there was no change in the Serbs' status? -- HolyRomanEmperor 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Mistake, well, correct me. How would the translation sound correctly?
Let me make a comparison. Presently, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs are constitutional nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In the Republic of Macedonia, two nations are constitutional: Macedonians and Albanians. The others are national minorities.
It's the following: Република Македонија е држава на македонскиот народ,како и на албанците кои живеат vo nea,и на останатите народи во неa како што се срби,турци,власи итн...
You can see how the Albanians are upgraded from a national minority to a constitutional nation. Roughly, in the same manner as Serbs were degrated from a constitutional nation to a national minority. -- HolyRomanEmperor 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to make less personal attacks and more explainations and comparisons. You might also know that people who think that they are always right aren't necessarily correct.
You should also learn this: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi... -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this fact that Elephantus deleted, Eleph, please see Human_rights_in_Croatia -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The text under the picture of Tesla smells like a POV (some may think that Isaac Newton is the greatest scientist of them all). It should be more neutral. KNewman 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why isnt there Geography section?
I just read the Constitution of Croatia. I noticed that Elephantus was wrong (I hope he didn't intentionally lie) about the Constitution's text. Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Mađara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, So, there is no "inih" and Serbs are definately a national minority. -- PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I some single nation in some, let's say imagined state, made 12.65% of general population and some other single nation made 86%. 1.35% would be some other nations and people that are not nationally aware. Let's say those 12.65 divide in to twho groups. One group made of 8% that decided to from their state within this imagined state and other group made of 4.65% total population that decides to live as common and loyal citizens of that imagined state. The 86% group among with the 4.65% suffers heavy bombardment from the 8% group because they have no weapons to defend theirselves. The 8% group sistematically annihilates 35% of that imagined country's territory and claims 18.5% of it's territory. The annihilations take place every day - daytime/nighttime. It doesnt matter to them. They just want to defend themselves although nobody is attacking them. From areas that they find theirs to have there are many unarmed members of the 86 and 4.65% groups. They are certainly in the way so they should find home in "their" country. So it lasts like that for 5 long years. Then, all of a sudden, the joined 90.65% group tired of being abused by a MINORITY OF 8% decides to strike back. They dont want them in their back yard. It is all over in 4 days. No more 8% group.
So if someone asks you - is 12.65% of, lets say metaphorically, correct test answers to get a positive test score, what would u say? Hm...we could maybe talk about 40% with a lower criteria, but 12.65% is an F-. Someone who gets F in a school full o A graders is clearly insigniicant. Maybe this is not the best way to compare, but anyone who looks at this imagined state from some other far away imagind state hardly gets how a minority could possibly abuse all other. Weapons embargo could maybe do the trick.
Mrfgh... Are you trying to justify changing the constituional status? 'cause that's not even the point here. :) And the majority abused the minority, whereas that type of Constitution prevented the majority from abusing the minority. Of course, many (most of the world) would agree that such a guarrantee through the Constituion is needless, and that the minority (Serbs) aren't jeoperdized - however, they would all be wrong - as it turned precisely like everyone feared from 1945 - so yes, that's needed. -- PaxEquilibrium 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Jankovic not a Serb surname? What was Stojan then - an Orthodox Croat? An Orthodox Croat whose descendents became Serbia's politicians? An Orthodox Croat whose "Tower of Jankovic Stojan" was destroyed by Croatian armed forces during the war because it was a "symbol of Serbdom" in the northern Dalmatian hinterland? -- PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Just listen to yourself.
I have already discussed this on your talk page, but wiki isn't your personal website to add whatever you wish. Your edits are blatantly and shamelessly inserting serbian extras into the page. Who on earth cares who the most important Serb Uskoks were? Not even the famous Croat ones are mentioned, and they are the vast majority of the real Uskoks. And I have no idea why the Metropolitanate of Karlovci is so important here, but attempt to explain if you are capable. Lika was part of the military frontier, but those census are just that--for the military frontier of lika, not Lika itself. i don't really have a problem with this part, just explain why it is relevent in the Lika page (besides for Serb users trying to stake a claim that they were some "majority" in Lika). -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)