I'm working on translating a biography from Italian to English, in order to write a featured article. If possible, can you please translate just this paragraph:
Codesti cinque primi canti in verità non sono tali da farci desiderare che venissero seguiti da altri pochi o molti: dirò anzi, che se a qualche cosa giovano, gli è appunto a convincerci che il Maggi non era poeta.
Thanks for your help :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 05:01
Brian, where did you pulled this out from? This Italian text seem so far from "real world" speech. It looks like the words were thrown in from all over the place. "Translation" should approximately be this:
Those five first songs in truth are not such, to make us wish that they are followed from others little or many ("altri pochi o molti"???): I'll say even that, that if to something young ("qualchecosa giovano"??, not "qualcuno giovane"?? - somebody young), (this part sounds strange) them is exactly to convince us that "il Maggi" wasn't the poet.
What did the author want to say? I don't have the idea. Kubura 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an old biography from 1862. Thanks for your help. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:45
Hello. I like your edits tagging Croatian-related people. Just one question: Can Diego Maradona be considered Croatian-Argentine? I'm not sure, but I think has some Croatian family. If you're involved in the subject, you can help me. Best, Mxcatania 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ola, Mxcatania. Well, there was a research (about a year ago), and one of the results of that research was that Maradona, has Croat roots, beside others. We should put that in the article about Maradona, and then put the category Croatian-Argentine. Sincerely, Kubura 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pišeš na krivu adresu. Netko je drugi stavio "secession", ja nikad ne bih uporabio taj izraz. U mojoj bi verziji obavezno pisalo nešto u stilu "became an independent state". --Zmaj 15:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dobro, vjerojatno mi je od umora promaklo, kad sam prispodobivao inačice. Stoj mi dobro, Kubura 09:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't speak any Croatian, I'm really a Canadian, my father was born in Croatia. I'm not too familiar with Croats in the NHL, I know Joe Sakic, I know that Branko Radivojevic is of Serbian ethnicity, and there are a few others. If there is any way I can lend a hand, I'm more than willing, you just gotta tell me how you want me to help. Croat CanuckGo Leafs Go 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you please not POV push on this article. As well your user page says you speak english at a near native level. judging by your edits on wikipedia, it looks more like your comprehension of English is basic at best, and so if I were you I would considere changing that on your user page.
your POV edits on Operation Medak Pocket that have now been deleted, namely where you say:
instead of retreating and letting government Croatian forces to restore control ("to restore order" makes no grammatic sense there)
"...." How do you know that these persons were "inocent civilians"," (innocent is correct spelling)
these are only a few of the multitude, not to mention of course your inclusion of personal POV questions in the article, when they should be on the talk page.
Have you ever heard of typing errors? (that explains inocent-innocent). People are sometimes very very exhausted.
"Restore order" is a literal translation of specific words used by Croatia's government's and military's spokesmen and by the minister of defense. They spoke about the restored (constitutional) order (Croat original: "uspostava ustavnog poredka"), not about restored control . The word "order" relates to that order, not to "command", if you thought that. POV? See the Talk page. Kubura 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of my message, it wasn't clear as to what had happened to HRE's account or to his physical health. And the RFA is postponed/suspended at this time by WP:OFFICE. It wasn't because I supported his RFA. I would have removed your message on the talk page if I opposed his RFA. Voting isn't done on the talk page, and its very clear right now that the voting is stopped at this time. — The King of Kings 22:49 July 05 '06
As I said, I won't make any problems. I only think that we shouldn't believe any hoax. Obviously, someone had approach to HRE's password. Kubura 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but its still not confirmed yet. It might be HRE himself, its really unclear at this point. — The King of Kings 02:37 July 07 '06
No it's definitely not Holy. Duja 07:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nokhodi.
Can you write us here the original (persian/farsi/parsi) names of:
the Iranian stadiums and
Iranian football competitions?
Well, I mean, transcripted in latin letters :)) (but form in arabic letters is welcomed, too).
Do really Azadi is "Azadi Stadium" or is something like, "Azadi Stadioni"?
Also, do Iranians call their top football league "Iran's Premier League? or something like "Irani Premijer Liga"?
Just as we call French stadiums here with French names ("Stade..."), Portuguese stadiums are "Éstadio...", Spanish stadiums are "Estadio...", Iranian stadiums are... ? Kubura 09:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC
Hello Kubura. Could you give me a example of a article so I can see clearly what you mean.
I can explain for stadiums though. Azadi Stadium for example would be pronounced "Estadiume Azadi" in Persian. Iran's Premier League football would be called, "Lige Bartare Footballe Iran". Send me another message, if I didn't explain clearly.
Nokhodi 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Azadegan League would be "Lige Azadegan". In persian we have subject first-then noun, pronoun, adjective or verb. So all the stadiums would be Estadiume xy. Esatdiume makes it possesive, but Estadium just means stadium. Lige means "League of", but Lig (pronounced league) means "league". I hope that made sense. Nokhodi 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hvala na post.
Kako ja vidim ima puno zajebanih ljudi na wikipedija.
1. Taljana koji guraju da Marco Polo je samo Taljan i ako neko kaze da je mozda Marko bio Hrvat oni to zovu neki Valdelisam on Wikipedia...to je neka Taljanska propaganda da ako neko oce da dokaze da je Marko bio Hrvat oni to odma brisu i pocmu govorit kako mi lazemo od tome. Ja mislim daje moguce da je bio Hrvat i puno ima dokaza da je moguce..vise nego Talijan.
Nasi koji su zivili pod Venecijon su minjali imena ..to svaka budala zna.
2. Srbi na Wikipedija stalno trazu bilo kakvi clank od Hrvatima ili Hrvatskon pa mecu neke lazi da to pripada Srbima..na primjer kazu kako Ivo Andric je Srb, kako je Boscovich Srb, Dalmacija naseljena sa Srbima ...gluposti ali neki Srbin ili monogno njih idu okolo pa radu edits...bezveze ali dolazi mi na nerves.
3. Bosanci su Hrvati "bili" koji su se pod Turcima "poturcili" i postali Muslimani.
Tako ja sam ucila u skoli u staroj Jugi. To su sve tri strane govorili prije ali danas sve se minja. Nove propagande i politike.
Danas ima Srba koji kazu drugcije da Bosnaci su bili Srbi a Bosanci kazu kako oni nemaju veze ni sa Hrvatima ni Srbima...glupo...
Nebi rekla da sam ja upravu ali mislim da ja mislim kao mnogi i kako pise historija Balkana...na Wikipedija ima neke nove verzije, nazalost i neki su poceli vjerovat u te gluposti....
Na kraju Pozdrav iz Amerike
Dalmatinka po granparents
Hi, can you help me opt for removal of the infobox from Krashovans. It's calling them a separate ethnic group from Croatians. Please help me. Thanks. 72.144.150.20 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, again you!!!!!! You have vandalized the article about the Republic of Ragusa.. You were several times warned, in the English and the Italian Wikipedia.
You are well know for your nationalistic fanatism, you spent all time in useless edits, removing all the non Croatian tracks in the Dalmatia related article.
If you inisist you will be again reported to a moderator and you could be blocked!
--Giovanni Giove 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni, whome are you fooling? If you continue to deliberately spread your expansionistic ideas, I'll report you to admins! Think twice before you say something about nationalism.
What do you think, that over here live only unliterate shepherds? And that you can sell your ideas about Croatian regions as you wish? Forget it!
You've deliberately changed the native toponyms in Croatia (particularly in littoral areas) into Italian ones. Or, if you want it that way, you're insisting on Italian names of Croatian cities, and threat (with blocking)to anybody who wants to change that.
I've changed those toponyms into NATIVE names, Croat names. And you call that - vandalism? If you can't live with the fact that Croats live here, that Croats are majority, and that Mussolini got kick in the butt over here, that's your problem! But don't lie other users here.
If you want to impose "laws", like Mussolini's fascist laws in 1920's, which forbid giving "funny Slavic names" to children (these laws were especially brought for purpose of violent de-croatization and de-slovenization of majority population in Istria, Croats and Slovenians), than we're having a serious problem over here on Wikipedia.
Yes, we've reverted imposed Italian names in 1943 in Croatia and Slovenia, as soon as occupied cities were liberated.
It's no problem to do it again. Kubura 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPORT ME TO AN ADMINISTRATOR. NO PROBLEM. What you call "expansionism", it's history of Middle Age and later. If you think that "Ragusa", it is a fascist invention instead the historic name of Dubrovnik, give references and report me to an administrator. I remeber you that the question was ALREADY discussed in the proper link of the article, and it has been decided to use the historic name " Republic of Ragusa", instead of "Republik of Dunrovnik". I advise you that yout fanatic nationalism doesn't help Croatia.--Giovanni Giove 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, please stop changing the name. It's accurate and proper to use historical names in an historical context - for instance, using Danzig instead of Gdansk for the period while it was under German rule, or Constantinople rather than Istanbul in articles about the Byzantine Empire. This is a long-standing principle on Wikipedia. Using Ragusa rather than Dubrovnik is entirely appropriate for the period when the city was primarily known as that. -- ChrisO 12:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that. That policy isn't implemented everywhere here, on en.wikipedia:
- e.g., during the reign of Ottoman Empire, Belgrade was called Dar-ul-Jihhad (the House of War), but that name isn't used for Belgrade in the articles about those times.
- Smederevo was called during Ottoman rule - Semender. But hat name isn't used for Smederevo in Ottoman times.
- Macedonian city Skopje is called Skoplje in articles that speak about that city in Ottoman times, not Üskub
- what about various Greek cities, that had Turkish names during Ottoman rule? Shall we make such anti-Greek provocations there?
- the case of Danzig is doubtful (as well as Posen etc.); I'm not shure that Poles agree with that. In former Yugoslavia, we all learned about those cities with their native names (Gdanjsk, Poznanj), if we haven't had our respective name.
- Giovanni Giove is very selective in using Italian names; how did he skipped name "Antivari" for Bar in Montenegro?
- What about Triest in Italy? At the end of WW2, Yugoslav forces controlled whole area of Triest littoral to the Soča/Isonzo river. Shall we call the city "Trst", as it is called in Croatian, Slovenian, Montenegrin and Serbian?
- "Using Ragusa rather than Dubrovnik is entirely appropriate for the period when the city was primarily known as that". That name was used only very small percentage of the population.
Because this is English Wikipedia, we use here English names; if there are no special English versions of the toponyms, we use native names. Otherwise, this is getting into something else. Kubura 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, Werner Herzog is of Croatian origin, but Stipe or Stjepan for that matter aren't only Croatian, they're Serbian too. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stipe and Stjepan are also Serbian name? HRE, are you kidding, wright? Nobody will take you seriously after this. I can imagine how Serbs are eager to give their children name Stipe or Stjepan. Ispalia ti i osta živ. A moj care, šta reče. Jesi me nasmija... Kubura 13:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a source for the claim that his father was a Croat? I lean towards believing you, but this has to be settled or it will say Yugoslavian again. Sources that looked it up in IMDb doesn't count, because anybody can send information to it. (There is some review, but it's not on a newspaper level.) --GunnarRene 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see the Croatian phonebook [www.htnet.hr/whitepages]. Surname Stipetić could be found only among the Croats.
Or, if you want it this way, Stipetić is one of Croatian generals from Homeland War 1991-1995.
Or, if you want it this way, root Stipe in surname Stipetić is Croat name (Stephen).Kubura 20:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you want it this way, Stipetić is one of Croatian generals from Homeland War 1991-1995.
Or, if you want it this way, root Stipe in surname Stipetić is a Croat name (Stephen). Greetings, Kubura 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, then. The claim is that Stipetić is a Croatian name. I'll be satisfied with that untill anybody challenges that. --GunnarRene 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. Kubura 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Napustih povijest poslije 1918 (najkasnije '19). Ne mogu shvatiti ta desavanja posle - nekako, te ovaj Drugi svjetski rat te sukobi izmedju Srba i Hrvata... nista toga nema prije ovoga. Nekako dolazi do te godine kada sve izgleda najljepse - a onda sve gore i gore i gore... Inace, specijalnost ce mi bit srednje stoljece, a ostalo ovako, samo NIKADA vise posle one granice - nemogu nikako da ukapiram osobe kao sto su Slobodan Milosevic, Ante Pavelic, pa cak ni Tita Josipa Broza... --HRE
Ne znam tko si, pretpostavljam u ime koga se predstavljaš. "...there was no conflicts between Croats and Serbs before 1918..."??? Are you kidding? You still have a lot to learn. Kubura 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - it's just like Dositej Obradovic predicted - common statehood ruined everything. Anyway, look it back that - the Croato-Serbian coalition held power in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia; Croatian or Serbian language (a. k. a. Illyrian) was official everywhere, and there was not a single Croat who wasn't proud of Marko Kraljevic or the Battle of Kossovo, completly enriching the Croatian epic focus through Serbian history - Ivan Mestrovic forging statues of Njegos and Tesla; Ivan Gundulic being obssessed with the Serbian "divine" people, the Yugoslav Assossiacions in Zagreb... it seemed like nothing was wrong. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A cherry and some ice-cream on the top of pile of manure doesn't turn it into a cake, it remains as manure.
Too many bad thing happened much before 1912. You don't have to go a lot into past - Just see the greaterserbian and anticroat pamphlet "Do istrage vaše ili naše". That pamphlet was Serb supremacist text, directed against Croats. Antiserb demonstrations followed.
Or do you want to know about the role of pro-Serb parties in reunification of Croatia (preventing the reunification of Dalmatia with the rest of Croatia) in the times of Austria-Hungary? The role of Croatian Serbs as foreign instrument against Croatia and Croats? How did they helped Hedervary? And you say "nothing was wrong"?
Second, you call Illyrian language from 1800's as Croato-Serb language? Where do you live? Have you read any books written in that "Illyrian"? Have you read the grammatic of Šime Starčević from 1812? That Illyrian is purely Croat language, without any doubts.
In some parts of Croatia, it is believed that Marko Kraljević is Croat. About "not a single Croat who wasn't proud of Marko Kraljević and Battle of Kosovo", I wouldn't agree. In many parts of Croatia don't give a damn about epic poetry. Among many Dinaric Croats, they don't sing about "outer" epic heroes, they sing about their domestic, local heroes. The last one that reached all Croat fame was Andrijica Šimić. Kubura 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an established way of dealing with the naming question - what was the city's official name during the particular period being described? My understanding was that it was officially called Zara until quite recently (see e.g. this map from 1911). See Gdansk for an example of how this has been implemented for another city with two historical names - you'll notice that the name used changes from Gdansk to Danzig where it discusses the period when the city was under German rule. Hope this helps. -- ChrisO 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove Joseph Panchich, Rudjer Boskovic, Ivo Andric, Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna and Emir Nemanya Kusturica from the List of Serbs article? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion should be moved to List of Serbs. However:
Josip Pančić, Ruđer Bošković, Ivo Andrić (explicitly declared, see Commons), Svetozar Borojević (explicitly declared) are Croats.
Milan Budimir (needs check).
Stevo Žigon is a Slovenian - his family during WW2 was forced to move from Slovenia due Hitler's policy. Many Slovenians moved to Serbia, where some of them accepted orthodox christianity.
Nemanja Kusturica (he isn't Emir anymore) is of doubtful Serb origins, he has Gipsy origins, possibly Bosnian Muslim. Still, if he declared himself as Serb, than OK.
Marko Murat, Marina Abramović, Davor Džalto, Matija Vuković, there's a need for confirmation that they are Serbs. {{fact}}. Too many Croats with these surnames.
Don't be like one who claimed that Krešimir Ćosić is a Serb. There were even such ridiculous persons. Kubura 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read about the Wikipedia policy of NPOV. Edits such as this: [3] in a basketball article is ridiculous. As well as creating articles such as "Serbian expansionistic wars in 1990's" do not belong in an encylopedia.// Lowg.talk. 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ivo Andric? No doubt he was an ethnic Croat - just he opted for Serbian nationality later in his life (even became a Serb nationalist in a way).
Rudjer Josip Boskovic is a Croat according to primary sources. While there are strong incinuations that he's Serb (mostly his father's ethnicity - Serbian), we should stick to what's primary. The same goes for Ivan Dzivo Gundulic.
Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna is indeed an explicitly declared Orthodox Croat - however, he is of ethnic Serb background. Should we then remove Ivo Andric from the List of Croats? Ofcourse not.
Josif Pancic was a Serbian botanist. I cannot understand the removal.
Emir Nemanja Kusturica is a Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim). According to him, it is time that the forcefully baptised return to their original beliefs. As he belongs to those believing that most Bosniaks are Moslem Serbs, it's obvious that he baptised into Orthodox Christianity. I can't understand why you removed him.
Actually, every adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church is AFAIC a Serb - which makes anyone who crosses into that religion one.
I still can't understand why you rm some of the people over there. Some are entirely obvious Serbs. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Borojević is from ethnic Croat background. Where do you get the idea of his Serb background?
Bošković and Gundulić are Croats, with Croat ethnic background.
If Pančić has converted to Orthodox Christianity, that doesn't make him a Serb. People with his surname in his native kraj are Croats, see Croatian phonebook. Same goes for Bošković family.
Don't mix Serbian with Serb.
Last time I've done some changes, I've put "citation needed". Cite changes where you want clarification.
HRE (or whoever represents him under his name), you've said: "Actually, every adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church is AFAIC a Serb - which makes anyone who crosses into that religion one ".
Do you know what you've just said???? Kubura 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My NPOV? Serbia's wars in 1990's were expansionistic. Here's the material from the English parliament [4] where it has been said: "A third, Serbia, has rightly been refused recognition because of its naked aggression against others...". Maybe Croats are thinking things up?Kubura 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I deleted your page "Serbian expansionistic wars in 1990's", if you feel like contributing to this topic, I suggest you try Yugoslav wars. You should also look up on the following policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE. Thanks. - FrancisTyers· 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that I did the wrong thing, please consider bringing the page up for deletion review. The page was a POV fork. I had a look, and it appeared that all the information that was on your page was in Yugoslav wars. The material in Yugoslav wars, along with the page name was more appropriate after considering Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - FrancisTyers· 00:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bought what? I think you forget that I actually read the page. - FrancisTyers· 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Josif Pancic a convert to Orthodoxy...? That's new to me... Anyway, I don't really see where's your claim on Josif Pancic founded... Boskovic's father was quitte possibly a Croat, but he converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism and his origin runs deeper into a Bosnian nobility... so he's a little controversal - might've been a Serb. I would disagree Ivan Gundulic and Rudjer Boskovic purely Croats - the latter only might've had that origin; while both would actually've been Dalmatians (Ragusians) and nothing else. Ofcourse, considering since the national awakening of our peoples, we could freely call them today both Croats - and evade any errors in the modern world.
I already cited the changes I don't like - Emir Kusturica, Svetozar Borojevic, Ivo Andric, Josif Pancic.
And, yes, I am totally aware of that fact. Why do you think the Orthodox Churches are national? There that way to provide a unity between nations, and thus they were over the course of history instruments of assimilation. Why do you think is a necessity to create the Montenegrin and Macedonian Orthodox Churches? Because it implies the Montenegrins and Macedonians that they are Serbs - they need their own national Orthodox Churches. Anyway, the definitions of one being "Serb" are huge - firstly, that is one who deeply expresses him that way, either through nationality like Ivo Andric or otherwise in the likehood of many certain Montenegrins like Matija Beckovic, or both, like Vojsiav Seselj or Radovan Karadzic. Then, there is also the Serbian Orthodox Church - that can be applied to Stevo Zigon ot Emir Kusturica. And finally, ethnic origin; either ethnicity, like with Svetozar Boroevic, Vladan Desnica, Nikola Tesla and Josif Pancic, or origin, either major origin (Rudjer Joseph Boskovic or that Bosnian Sarajevan Serb/Croat musician - what's his name?), or minor origin but with certain importence: Rambo Amadeus (national), Tvrtko I Kotromanic (political), etc.
You might notice that a large part of the Croats are simply nearly the same - naturalized. David Schwarz, Ljudevit Gaj, Ivan Lupis, Rudjer Josip Boskovic, Ljudevit Gaj, Josip Juraj Strossermayer, Svetozar Boroevic, Vladan Desnica or even Nikola Tesla, etc... They're all Croats based on the mild reasons stated above.
Also, the last way is citizenship - although the west has this clear, with every French, Italian or German citizen being a Frenchman, an Italian or German; we have certain problems regarding this due to Communism, which destroyed differences between Nations and Ethnicities - we could call every Serbian citizen "a Serb", but this would bring up major controversies over Vojvodina, or even more so Kosovo; not to mention what about the Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina... or Montenegro.
Anyway, this was clear in the pre=Communist times - constitutionally, any inhabitant of Serbia or Montenegro was a Serb, and anyone not born in either Serbia or Montenegro and yet of non-Serb nationality is to become a Serb after spending a decade in either Serbia or Montenegro. This was also a major way of - oh, yet again! - assimilation.
I'll take that as an offense. Please define, what is "Greaterserbianism"? The abovementioned wars might've been expansionistic - but not just for the Serbian side(s). And no, Serbia hasn't started most of those wars. You forgot that I am criticized also by Serbian and Bulgarian users. Isn't it a little odd that I get only good revisions from Montenegrin, Greek and Macedonian users? Then again, I have received "positive rating" from the very few Albanian users that are right now put on trial (an arbitration) because of alleged trollish POV-pushing on the Kosovo article (Oh, Muse and Mary! I am only liked by the central Balccanalians! :). And, I mostly do good with all the administrators of the administrators of the Balkans and users that are of "mixed stock" (like myself). I think that this all tells more about you that me. :)
Francis, my apologees for using your talk page as a responce (will try to evade it in future!!!). Best regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, HRE, these wars wer Serbian expansionistic wars. Ideology that started it was greaterserbianist ideology. If you can't live with the fact that Serbian leadership screwed up, and that Serb people allowed themselves to get involved in a war in which they plundered their neighbours, that's your problem, but you'll have to live with that. You may fool people for some time, but not for the whole time. Kubura 08:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Serbia expand? If you refer to sporradic territorial fighting - then its not the only side - Croatia expanded by a third, Bosnians and Herzeg-Bosnian Croats have had their bad times - a similiar thing was on Kosovo. As for starting with "Greaterserbianism" (note: the actualy term is POV, so better avoid using it), I thought that national liberalism, emancipation, nationalism and separatism did. Croatia, Slovenia, BiH, Macedonia, Kosovo - autonomist movement in Sandzak and then Krajina, RS, Croat Republic of HB - separatism was the main ideology. Roughly saying, the Serbian leadership did screw up in every way possible indeed. Criticizing how Serb people allowed themselves to get involved in a war is albeit somewhat true, too overgeneralizing. Do you take the possibility that you're maybe fooling yourself? --PaxEquilibrium 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pax, are you playing dumb (je li se ti praviš lud?)? Sorry for using this word, but I've tried to use as lighter word as I could.
Serbia did tried to expand. Someone doesn't have to succeed in expansion attempt to call it expansionism. Even the try is expansionism, but you're supposed to know that if you have elementary school.
I can write you an whole essay here, but that's what you and other playdumbers want here. You just say "it's not, proove it", naive admins buy that story, and than I have to get exhausted by writing six pages of text with bunch of references, to clarify them things that've been discussed and clarified on courts, international diplomacy and media etc. much before.
"Greaterserbianism" is a POV term? Where did you get that? Are you serious? Than what is "greaterserbianist ideology" or "ideology of Greater Serbia"? How do you make an adjective? Or you haven't had that lesson in school yet?
Overgeneralizing about involvement of Serb people... All right. Some Serbs didn't allowed themselves to get involved in warmongering and expansionistic-chauvinistic ideology/movement (what was the name of that ideology, can you rememer?). But, few birds don't make a spring. Kubura 12:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've just seen your information about my Yugoslavia wartime map and former Albanian rebel areas. Can you give me some more information about it. Please use my new talk as swPawel2 (I forgot former password years ago). SwPawel2 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks a lot for your translation in Croatian. Tembelejderha is actually not a full word, you can't find it at that form from a dictionary but that user just uses that way. It comes from tembel=lazy and ejderha=dragon. A lot of noun names come from verb roots like 'yat' means lie down (yatmak=to lie down or to sleep if you prefer so) yatak is bed. There are foreign originated words like futbol, basketbol, voleybol, hentbol as sports words. You may have recognised what they are. I think the biggest advantage of learning Turkish is that there are no 'artikels' like der/die/das/pl.die in German or nouns and people being separated as feminine/masculine. There is no he/she too. They are all 'o' which are all he/she/it. ex: o kız (that girl), o erkek (that boy), o kitap (that book). Erkek öğretmen= man teacher, kadın öğretmen=woman teacher. Öğretmen comes from the root öğret that means teach (öğretmek=to teach). Turkish is hard for foreign learners because there are a lot of suffixes and they change depending on the vowel, there is a vowel harmony and unfamiliar letters like ç, ğ, ı, ö, ş, ü sometimes difficult for them. There is no q, x, w as in English. The coolest thing is that you could put 2 tenses + negative suffix + person suffix all t one word like "gelemeyecektim" (I wasn't going to be able to come) separated as: gel-e-me-(y)ecek-ti-m and you could put "ben" in front as "I" if you would like. For further information you can write to my Turkish talk page or use my e-mail because I don't use this account a lot. When I saw your user name I thought of the Turkish name Kübra- a girls name in Turkish. If it has a meaning I could write its Turkish. Thank-you again. Bahar (means 'spring' as season in Turkish)
Hi! Please, generally do not make controversial moves without discussing first. Here are my reasons to move the page back:
"Old Church Slavonic" has 107,000 Google hits ([5]) vs. only 15,200 for "Old Church Slavic" ([6])
Britannica ([7]), Encarta ([8]) and the Columbia Encyclopedia ([9]) all use the term "Old Church Slavonic". The same goes for most authoritative publications (830 vs. 230)
Your main concern seems to be the opinion that "Slavonic" means "from, of Slavonia". This is wrong, "Slavonic" is an older form of "Slavic" which has been preserved in the name "Old Church Slavonic". The correct adjective for Slavonia seems to be "Slavonian" ([10]), although it can mean "Slavic" too.
Hope you agree with my points. Todor→Bozhinov 11:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Todore, I disagree with the revert to Old Church Slavonic.
Slavonic = slavonski, from Slavonia.
Slavic = slavenski, from Slavs.
Google hits aren't always good measure. Of course that it will be more hits on Slavonic, than on Slavic, because Britannica and Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia use word "Slavonic". But they are wrong.
Those who wrote those articles aren't Slavs, they don't make difference between Slav, slava, Slava, Slavko, slavuj, Slave, slave (verb, 3.pers.pl. of "slaviti"), slave (noun, 1.pers.pl. of "slava"), slavlje, slovo, Slovio, slavica, Slavica, Slavic, Slavonic, Slavia, Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia.
These words sound all the same for non-Slavic speaker, but for the Slavs it should be clear that these aren't the same things.
So, don't intend to allow to non-Slavic scientists to mutilate Slavic words. "Slavonic" is an older form of "Slavic" which has been preserved in the name "Old Church Slavonic". This proofs nothing. It only shows how old this mistake is (in English literature).
This mistake in fact contains two mistakes:
it points to wrong direction (Slavonia, instead on Slavs) and
it is the example of uncorrect adjective formation (where does that -on comes from?); the -ic is being added on the root, not -onic. How would sound: "Balkanonic nation of Bulgaria", "angelonic face", "Germanonic origin", "cyrillonic letters", "galvanonic cell", "hermetonic seal"....
At least, you're a Slav. You're supposed to know and hear the difference.
Maybe you've never heard for Slavonia (northeastern part of Croatia), but here, in Croatia, when a person reads word "Slavonic", he thinks on Slavonia, not on Slavs at all.
I hope I've explained you the matter. Kubura 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... this is the English Wikipedia and here we use English (not Croatian or Bulgarian), no matter how etymologically incorrect or whatever the English term may be. All the differences you cited exist in Slavic languages, but not in English, and the term "Slavonic" doesn't refer to Slavonia (I'm well aware of the region) in English, at least not in most cases.
No matter how Britannica, Encarta, etc. are wrong in your opinion, they are established, reliable sources, and "Old Church Slavonic" is the most common and best-known term (Google hits). "Slavonic" possibly comes from "Slavonians", which is an archaic word for "Slavs", and even if it could have had something to do with Slavonia originally, it certainly refers to the Slavs, not to the region.
I understand your objections, but I do not think they are compatible with the Wikipedia naming conventions (e.g. use the most common and recognizable name). Todor→Bozhinov 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These links speak for themselves:
- Google search for Church Slavonic(271,000 hits)
- Google search for Church Slavic (1,950,000 hits)
Suddenly, we have a change of ratios and numbers here.
I'm still saying, the naming of an Slavic language as "Slavonic" is wrong and uncorrect.
Possibly this wrong use (Slavonic instead of Slavic) comes from an obsolete scientific terminology for starocrkvenoslavenski.
Have in mind the Google results that I've presented you.
Now the Wikipedia's naming convention turns the other way. Kubura 00:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of article about Serbian expansionis wars[edit]
Too fast move, Francis. Are you sure you've done the right thing? Deleting the article "Serbian expansionist wars in 1990's"? What was wrong with it? Kubura 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did put parts of the text from "Yugoslav wars" into that article, because it needed some content, for the beginning.
Still, I was planning to add more material to the article (matter is large); War in Slovenia (Ten day war), Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War, Kosovo war themselves alone do not explain the whole picture. Still, the "Yugoslav wars" article (that name isn't good, where is now "no original research" policy?), deals with war on the area of former Yugoslavia, but all these wars weren't the Serbian expansionist wars.
Or, if you want it that way, than there were also Yugoslav wars in 1940's, as part of WW2.
Certain user, known for its greterserbianism, complained about "anti-Serb POV" content on the talk page of the speedily deleted article. What did he wanted to say? That abovementioned wars weren't expansionist wars, and that Serbia hasn't started all these wars?
And you're listening to complaints of such user? BTW, that user besides is being criticised from Croatian, Bosniac and Albanian (Kosovar) users. It's not unusual if he used greaterserbianist sites as reference. You neglect that fact and you react to his complaints and obey to his wishes?
Speedy deletion? And you've bought it? Kubura 01:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an offense. Please define, what is "Greaterserbianism"? The abovementioned wars might've been expansionistic - but not just for the Serbian side(s). And no, Serbia hasn't started most of those wars. You forgot that I am criticized also by Serbian and Bulgarian users. Isn't it a little odd that I get only good revisions from Montenegrin, Greek and Macedonian users? Then again, I have received "positive rating" from the very few Albanian users that are right now put on trial (an arbitration) because of alleged trollish POV-pushing on the Kosovo article (Oh, Muse and Mary! I am only liked by the central Balccanalians! :). And, I mostly do good with all the administrators of the administrators of the Balkans and users that are of "mixed stock" (like myself). I think that this all tells more about you that me. :)
Francis, my apologees for using your talk page as a responce (will try to evade it in future!!!). Best regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, here's the material from the English House of Commons from November 1992 [11], where it has been said "...A third, Serbia, has rightly been refused recognition because of its naked aggression against others...". (and English diplomacy's been known for its pro-Serb attitudes!). If somebody doubts now about the fact that Serbia's wars in 1990's were expansionistic, let him read that line. Now you have the source. More will come, if you require. Sincerely, Kubura 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Conservative politician? What does that mean? That that is the opinion of a member of some extremist party that wins 2.3% at elections?
What was the opinion of Margaret Thatcher, Francis? Do you know who Maggie Thatcher is? "Some conservative politician"? How did she defined Serbian aggression on Croatia and BiH? And what she proposed as solution? Do you remember? Or you were still in kindergarten then?
I leave Macedonian matters to my Macedonian friends, I have enough work with Croatian matters. Kubura 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't implying that he was a Croat - are you? --PaxEquilibrium 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would really much like to hear your reply on this one... --PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is he a Serb? All right, 9 more fingers on my hands to go. Kubura 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course he is; what else could he be? --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how can you suddenly object this man's evident nationality & ethnicity. Let's say hypotheticly George Bush names his son Ante Bush - would you claim it irridentist to call him American and that he is most definately Croat? --PaxEquilibrium 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said "all right", I won't argue, I repeat again, 9 more fingers. Kubura 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said that all those Serbs that weren't a part of it - which is a majority, considering for instance that Milosevic's support in the Republic of Serbia never exceeded one third of the population - are just some unimportant birds. What about Croatia, where the whole mass of the populace supported Tudjman, where exceptions really are just some birdies?
Also, if you're refering to "Serbian expansionistic wars", why aren't you claiming "Montenegrin expansionistic wars"? --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The leadership of Montenegro (and MANY Montenegrins) has put themselves into the service of greaterserbianist machinery. All those warmongers from Montenegro, all those Montenegrins that invaded Croatia, supported the idea of Montenegrins as Serbs.
Fact is, that, Montenegrins, that do not equalize Montenegrins with Serbs, are generally not anti-Croat, even more, many of them are pro-Croat. It wasn't a some kind of "unusuality", nor an accident, that even during the worst times of aggression from Serbia and Montenegro on Croatia, that there were streets in Croatian cities with names related to Montenegro (Cetinje, Lovćen, Njegoš..., and those streets were not in some "dark corner", but just above Tuđman's (p)residential area), while the streetnames related to Serbia were all removed. Kubura 09:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? Actually, you're wrong. The current Montenegrin government is Montenegrin nationalistic and most definately does not consider the "Montenegrin=Serb" definition - it's the same government that committed atrocities in Dubrovnik and all over Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, etc. AFAIC, the Serb People's Party and the People's Part (pro-Serb parties) are in opposition ever since their creation in 1990. In 1991 the Serbs organized "a peace calling" in Cetinje, Podgorica and elsewhere, calling for the end of whidespread violence in Yugoslavia between Serbs and Croats and especially of the Montenegrin government that conducted anti-brotherCroatian and anti-Serbian propaganda in Montenegro. It is AFAIC that those parties that are Montenegrin nationalistic are the ones that frequently spread anti-Croat propaganda - Momir Bulatovic promised he will stop Croatian expansionism, Milo Djukanovic said he no longer plays chess because of the Croatian Coat-of-Arms and how the Bolshevik Croat borders of Yugoslavia will be finally cancelled; Svetozar Marovic propagated how war on Croatia is good. Don't even make me start on Radovan Karadzic & Slobodan Milosevic.
I don't know why your mention of Croatia's anti-Serbian propaganda conducting has anything to do with this subject. The subject is that you seem not to consider that Montenegro was expansionist, if Serbia was. --PaxEquilibrium 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing Momir Bulatović and Milo Đukanović???
Milo told that Montenegro has screwed up and that they should pay for what they've done. That's a nice start for someone who screwed up.
I've already told you that I do not count the Montenegrins that declared themselves as Serbs (or equalized Montenegrins as Serbs) here.
Don't try to hide the guilt of Serbia and Serbs by drowning Montenegro and Montenegrins. Propaganda of "two eyes" has started somewhere else, and somebody else had through "mitings" and "događanja naroda" removed the leadership of SR Montenegro. Kubura 17:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said: Yugoslavia has dissoluted. Like a dissolved partnership, where all partners were equal. If someone becomes too imposive in partnership, and wants to rule over the others (instead behaving as one of equals), then other partners dissolve the partnership. Same as with marriages. One spouse may be the only that kept the (sur)name, but that doesn't give him the right to claim right on all property that one marriage brought with it. I've mentioned the case of marriage, where both spouses entered as equal, with no "pre-marriage contracts"
Well, remember our old conversation? - Croatia was a marriage of Croats & Serbs. Then the Croats roughly said 'wanted to rule over the Serbs', then the othery party (the Serbs) decided to dissolve the partnership - which they subsequently did. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia was not a binational state in ex-Yu. This is just another myth. Franjo_Tuđman#The_President_of_Croatia.."..the constitutional role of Serbs in Croatia was consciously misrepresented, since Croatian Serbs, although explicitely mentioned in the Socialist Croatia constitution, have never been a constitutive people with the right to secede, and Croatia never a binational state.Mir Harven 11:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's this Paxy?????
Yugoslavia ended because Serbia wanted to rule all of Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croats had no say so they wanted out.
Nobody would stand for Greater Serbia under the banner Yugoslavia in the 90s and Milosevic.
Serbia didn't have to attack Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia...Serbs just needed to give equal rights to all the people of Yugoslavia.
Serbia is to blame..i don't see how anybody else is.
Why was Macedonia able to gain independence without problems? Croatia and Bosnia was more of a loss to Serbs that's why they attacked.
Croatia has NEVER wanted to rule Serbia ...but has Serbia wanted to rule Croatia??? ...YES..and you know it
Wake up..sram te bilo.
Jagoda 1 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything in here? --PaxEquilibrium 08:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia was like a partnership of six republics.
Croatia wants (as any other country) to have a rule all over its territory.
If you're forgetting things, then don't mess into something that you don't understand and don't persistently play dumb.
If you think that minorities can separate from certain country just like that, than apply that in Serbia, in areas with significant with Bulgarian, Aromanian/Romanian Vlach, Gipsy and Albanian population (and I'm not speaking about Kosovo and Vojvodina!). Also try to sell your story in Romania and in Hungary, they have also areas with significant Serb minority. Try to tell to users from Romania and Hungary that Serb-populated areas can separate from Romania and Hungary.
If you have problem understanding that, read the conclusions of Badinter's committee, they also answered to that question (question of minorities), beside others. Kubura 09:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Yugo wasn't like Serbia & Montenegro in 2003-2006 (which is like a partnership). A partner ship is when independent states join together, or when centralization is applied over the course of time - that's not the case in Yugoslavia. 6 Republics did not comprise Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was composed of six Republics.
Serbs were not a minority in Croatia, but one of its two peoples.
All those you mentioned are insignificant minorities; although perhaps the best comparation of Serbs of Krajina is with the Albanians of Kosovo. All those territories you mentioned cannot secede & join another country because that's unconstitutional; although I do not understand your point of noting in here. --PaxEquilibrium 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1)You said: "Yugo wasn't...". I won't argue if the relations between former Yugoslav federal subjects were the same as with those in Serbo-montenegrin federation, that's not the topic here.
2)I gave the example of partnership/marriage as approximative and descriptive.
3)You've just mentioned why Serb-populated areas couldn't secede from Croatia.
4)Serbs were a minority in Croatia. If you still think that 12% is more than 78%, than you should have learned maths more, especially the basics of arithmetics.
5)Serbs of Krajina? Which Krajina? Sinjska? Vrlička? Cetinska? Drniška? Omiška? Imotska? Vrgoračka? Bela? Cazinska? These krajinas cannot be compared with Kosovo, because they weren't autonomic provinces. Kubura 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "comparing" Momir & Milo. The two, together with Svetozar are the "Big Three" of Montenegro for the past 15 years. They were all dispatched to Montenegro by Slobodan to create a faithful puppet of Yugoslavia, where they seized power in an illegal semi-violent communist coup d'etat; further on continuing their games and maintaining an autocratic rule over Montenegro fro 15 years. "You don't count Montenegrins that.." I'm sorry, but I don't understand this one. Are you saying that you count no Montenegrin? Yes, the free leadership of Montenegro (currently the Serb opposition parties) was removed by Slobodan Milosevic using three very influencial and powerful autocrats (Momir, Milo & Svetozar).
Oh well-then. Croats are a minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina (15%>, in numbers always less than Croatian Serbs) and Vojvodina (shocking 1%, with insignificant numbers)) and yet they are/were not treated as such. If we dragg along these comparisons; then fine: Croats "were a minority in Yugoslavia". ;) Do you see? --PaxEquilibrium 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed and can't find where. Excuse my... well, lack of intelligence :(, but what do you mean by "9 more fingers"? --PaxEquilibrium 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No nation had absolute majority in Yugoslavia.
No nation has absolute majority in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
When you mention the Croatian Serbs, have you counted there the Serbs that were colonized in Croatia through the system of active and retired "military personnel"?
About Montenegro, I gave you the answer, the guilty ones should be processed by authorized institutions. But don't try to relieve Serbia by putting the burden of guilt on Montenegro; Montenegro has its share of guilt, but the mastermind was somewhere else. The inciting came from Serbia. Kubura 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 fingers? The number of "Serbs with name Stjepan" won't exceed the numbers of my fingers. Kubura 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got 4 members of the House of Petrovic-Njegos, Ljubisa and a lot more if we count many medieval figures (I dount). It's all a matter of how to translate. "Stijen" as Croat (and "Stefan" as Serb) was established only recently; all those variations were just a single name. Today, in Serbian literature Ljubisa is known as Stefan and he even called himself "Stefan" (or even "Stevan") even though that was not his name. The Medieval figures of Bosnia are called in Croatia errorously "Stjepans" when many of them were AFAIC "Stefan"s... all of that is relative - I repeat, the epics remember Emperor Dusan as a Stjepan, not as a Stefan (I guess you'll need more fingers now). ;)
P. S. - Serbs are a Constituent nation of Macedonia, despite always numbering meager percentages, like the Croats of Vojvodina (who are constituent too). Those numbers are smaller than the percentage and even more numbers of Serbs in Croatia now (not comparing to the past, when they were far more numerous). --PaxEquilibrium 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That puts another question. Was Dušan a Serb? There are works that bring his serbhood into question.
Medieval figures of Bosnia are called in Croatia as "Stjepans" by error? Uh, to proove you something, I'll have to visit museums and make a photos of medieval documents where the name is written as Stipan. And that's not the Serb name. If you're mixing the title with the name, that's the other thing.
Constituent nation of Macedonia? I'll ask Macedonian users, you're pretty easily waving with constituenship of certain nations. Kubura 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're unclear - I think that it's evident in Dusan's case. Why are you incinuating that? You're so eager to easily dispute such things with the Serbs, however when there are people like Rudjer Boskovic, you more than easily call him Croat. That's a little unfair. Just go to the Dubrovnik Archive where I and others took the many edicts of Bosnian & Serbian Medieval rulers (the long edict of Stephen Nemanya is from there), and you'll see that most called themselves "Stefan"s. However, using this as an incinuation to state that they were clearly Serbs is evidently irridentist, taking into considerations that name variations (Stefan, Shtefan, Stjepan, Stijepan, Stefan, Stevan, Stevo, Stipe, Shchepan,...) have had nothing to do with nationality/ethnicity up to recent time. I can safely say that none called themselves "Stipan"s (that ikavica!). These issues are just as with "Pavle". In Croatia, the Bosnian "Pavlovic" family's founder is errorously reffered-to as "Pavao", whereas when the Subic Croaian family's members are in Serbia (and Montenego) & Bosnia falsly refered-to as "Pavle"s. Take Joseph Panchich's brother, who is called in Croatia "Pavao" and in Serbia "Pavle" - yet neither was his name.
Ban Matej Ninoslav is errorously in Serbia called "Matija". He excplicitly called his subjects "Serbs" (and "Matej" is not realy a Serbian-sounding name; although "MatejA" is).
Then there are evident Serbian Medieval rulers like Stjepan (or Stijepan, Stepan or whatever) like Stephen Vukchich Kosacha. ;)
Stephen II of the House of Kotroman's real name; despite being called Stijepan/Stjepan even in Serbia, RS and Montenegro was Stefan.
Dabisha, Tvrtko, Tvrtko of Tvrtko , Ostoya (both) and Tomash - had all names "Stefan"s. The last Tomash's Bosnian Kotroman Monarch's name was percisely Štefan Stepan. --PaxEquilibrium 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, in the 1990s the nationalist regimes were in Montenegro (Montenegrin nationalist) and Serbia (Serbian nationalist) to an extent - Milo Djukanovic, althogh sometimes a Serb nationalist was mostly a Montenegrin nationalist. The People's Party (and later, the Serb People's Party and since recently the new Democratic Serb Party) have all been in opposition since their creation (1990 in PP's case). The Serbian political leadership held mass demostrations in 1991 calling for the preservation of Yugoslavia, end to violence of the anti-Serbian regime and of Montenegro and xenophobic propaganda against the Croats. I am comparing Milo to Momir because the two, together with Svetozar, where "the big three" dictators of Montenegro (whereas others only had one - Serbia Milosevic, Croatia Tudjman, Bosnia Izetbegovic), the activists of the Milosevic style.
I noticed that you have a rather bad opinion towards any pro-Serb Montenegrin. That's stereotypic, man! --PaxEquilibrium 19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypes? I've based my attitudes on the actions of actual persons and on my personal experiences.
"Serbian political leadership held mass demonstrations in 1991 calling for preservation of Yugoslavia" Whome?
"...calling to end of violence of the anti-Serbian regime..." ???
"...and of Montenegro..." Have you eaten something strange?
"...and xenophobic propaganda against the Croats" Did you meant calling for xenophobic propaganda against the Croats? If you said that, then you've confirmed what I've been saying to you whole the time. If you meant calling against the propaganda..., than I don't believe that story. Serbian leadership held demonstrations for that, child? Serbian leadership, the biggest warmonger? Huškači na Hrvatsku? Whome are you fooling? We've been able to hear and see Serbian TV and radio stations in 1991. Also we had regular transmissions on Croatian TV what's been said. Some of us Croats were in Serbia and in Montenegro then. Some of Croats were serving military service back then. We've heard their stories about attitudes of certain peoples and who said what and who was against whom. Kubura 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image. I see at the bottom "ban Stipan" and in bosančica written "Hrvatina Stefanića". Did you wanted to tell me that Stefan is Croat name? Kubura 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahm, that's the part of the Ragusian (or whoever he was) interpretor - "Stipan" - and not Stefan's name. A "Hrvatin Stevanic" was a witness of the signing. I do not know what you mean - never have I tried to proove how "Stefan" was Serbian - it was/is Christian.
Ahm, that's the part of the Ragusian (or whoever he was) interpretor - "Stipan" - and not Stefan's name. A "Hrvatin Stevanic" was a witness of the signing. I do not know what you mean - never have I tried to proove how "Stefan" was Serbian - it was/is Christian.
You're not really listening: in the 1990s the Montenegrin (could we call it nationalistic?) regime constantly propagated a short clip of King Nikola calling the Montenegrins to fight for Yugoslavia - propaganda against the seccessionist policies of Yugoslavia (mostly Croatia). The "Big Three" (Momir Bulatovic, Milo Djukanovic & Svetozar Marovic) held numerious speeches (headed by Svetozar and sometimes by Milo - Svetozar was the spokesperson), claiming how Croats will ruin Yugoslavia and even how they're ruining Montenegro (besides being an insignificant minority); also claiming how the Croats occupy most of "their lands" (Herzegovina, southern Dalmatia). Svetozar M. edited a magazine whose sole purpose was to talk about the progress of the war, and justified the war by saying "we're making war to save peace". Milo Djukanovic was indeed the worst, he stated that (he was a very good chess-player) no longer plays chess because it reminds him of the Ustasha chessboard (and oddly, he didn't play it till present-day). Also, while Milo was overseeing and taking charge of the Siege of Dubrovnik together with Momir, he stated how these Bolshevik Croatian Communist unjustful borders will finally be abolished. The pro-Serb People's Party was founded with the beginning of the multy-partial system in Montenegro and ever since its creation called for end of aggression on Croatia, the suffering of what Montenegro stands for (its Serbian element) under the regime and end to Milosevic dictatorship. And yes, mass demonstrations for peace accross Yugoslavia, and not the government's irridentist policy. In 1997 the Serb People's Party seperated because of inner conflicts (the People's Party joined the corrupt Montenegrin regime in an effort to unite Montenegro against Milosevic, but some members didn't like aiding "traitors" - although as soon as Milosevic fell, they returned to the opposition), and is in opposition ever since. Recently, the 3rd ethnic Serb Party had been formed - the Democratic Serb Party. and this year the Serb Radical Party smuggled itself to Montenegro, although noone support it because it supports the old views of Momir Bulatovic, Milo Djukanovic & Svetozar Marovic. Do you understand now? --147.91.8.10 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first make something clear - by "Serbian leadership" we are referring to the opposition to the Montenegrin government since the multi-partial elections, right (since 1990)? --PaxEquilibrium 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian leadership=leadership of SR Serbia and later leadership of Republic of Serbia in FRY/SCG. Kubura 13:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main conflict is that the Serb People's Party is Serbian nationalist and protects the interests strictly of the Serb People (they are for proclaiming a binational state "Serbs" and "Montenegrins" as constitutional peoples) - whereas the People's Party has members of other nationalities and denies any possibility whatsoever of "Serbs" and "Montenegrins" being two seperate ethnicities (supporting the liberty of every citizen and maintaining Montenegro a "civic-state"). P. S. there are arguements that go deeper than that which you think - the current Head of the unrecognized uncannonical Montenegrin Orthodox Church and Head of State of Montenegro are Serbs. --147.91.8.10 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. - one member in the Serb People's Party is called "Stijepa". ;) --PaxEquilibrium 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you want to blame the Montenegrins equally as Serbs.
Second, I know that Montenegrins have Šćepans as well.
Third, you're reading wrong. Hrvatin Stefanić. You're mixing f with v.Kubura 13:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add several more bits like suger on top of a cake: The Day is the only pro-Serbian paper in Montenegro. It has been propagating against Milo Djukanovic's regime ever since its restoration in 31 December 1998. It has kept publishing articles (and was thereby the only free Montenegrin papers) that spoke against the National-Socialist ("Nazi"? heh ;) regime of Djukanovic. One day they published the list of all the people who were shot by the mouth of Milo Djukanovic (on part included an incomplete list of all ethnic Croats killed/tortured in southern Dalmatia and Montenegro; aside from other - like political enemies (most), prominent Serbian patriots etc.). In June 3 2004 the editor, Dusko Jovanovic - was mysteriously assassinated. The investigation still lasts, and the only reason is that they've discovered that the police is involved (allegedly government? Milo?). Ever since, the Day was constantly under the pressure of the government, bombed in 2005 and appart from other incidents, is being prosecuted by the government of Montenegro (although the new Premier said that there is no accusation at all and announced dropping the charge).
Yesterday, Jevrem Brkovic (the pro-Croatian Montenegrin artist, historian & politician) barely survived an assassination attempt (his bodyguard was killed), and the blaims are mostly on Milo's gang.
We haven't forgot. Legal procedure is for everyone.
Still, he changed the Croatian-Montenegrin relations in other direction in 21. century (What happened? Why? How? He didn't had a gun pointed in its head.), and that's also important to have in mind.
Let's not get involved into stories clairvoyancy of assasination attempt on Jevrem Brković. I had other ideas who may be, but the truth 'll come out, sooner or later.Kubura 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, we're talking about Montenegro, not Serbia (Serbian leadership in Montenegro).—Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) , 16:03, 26 October 2006
I'm not "blaming" the Montenegrins equally as Serbs. If we use this primitive logic, then in Montenegro's case we could blame mostly Montenegrins. However, this is wrong; its national generalization - and a whole people cannot be blamed. We can blame a country (and then we are talking about the government), and not a people. Since the very same regime rules Montenegro for 16 years (ever since multi-parlamentarism), we can blame the Montenegrin government (mostly Milo, as the chief man - like Milosevic in Serbia, or Tudjman in Croatia...) for all bad things that happened to or Montenegro was connected to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) , 16:11, 26 October 2006
Shchepanovich is one of the most frequent surnames among Serbs & Montenegrins, whereas the name "Shchepan", originally from the Zeta-Metohijan linguistic group (and originally from clans like the Vasojevics, Kuci and several other) has had their regional version of "Stephen" spread across the Republic of Montenegro very recently, becoming some sort of a national Stephanic name (just like Stijepan today is Croatian; and Stevan/Stevo/Steva Serbian west of the drina and south of the Sava; while "Stefan" everywhere). However, I do not understand why you mentioned this in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) , 16:16, 26 October 2006
Whatever relations he changed is yet another action of his political genius. Today, Milo is known as a Serbophobe, and a sympathizer of Croats & Albanians (the first his main enemies). This only further shows his political mastermind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) , 16:33, 26 October 2006
Jevrem wrote "a Doclean story", criticizing normal life in Montenegro, the then/current political regime and gross corruptness of the government (read: Milo Dj. and his "friends"). He himself blames Milo solely. You could also know that Jevrem earned a lot of enemies throughout Montenegro (not to mention beyond); he was exiled from the state in the early 1990s (although Milo says Jevrem left because he didn't like Montenegro and its people). Serbs never liked him because of his leniency on Montenegrin nationalism, but heavily fueled by a pro-Croatian view and because of his evident anti-Serbian character - however the Serbian intellectual leadership met with him, stating that they need to work-out their relationship and that he needs to be a little more positive in that order. Brkovic subsequently admitted that he was ..somewhat harsh and wrong about the Serbs before, stating that all he said about GreaterSerbdom in Montenegro would've been most properly directed to the personal corruptness, trickeries, lies, deceit, etc of Milo Djukanovic (although he might've been a little too harsh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) , 23:35, 26 October 2006
Now let me quote Milo in the moment of Jevrem's long-time excursion to Croatia: Svaki pametan Crnogorac i svaki pošten čovjek u ovoj zemlji sa prezirom pominje ime izdajnika Jevreme Brkovića, koji je iz lične sujete izdao svoj narod i sada daje antijugoslovenske izjave po Zagrebu, dok ustaše, ponovo kao 1941. godine, krvave svoje kame na nemoćnim srpskim civilima. --PaxEquilibrium 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry?
Were my words somewhat insulting or just too long? --PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way - I just checked Nemanya's original title: it's Stjefan. --PaxEquilibrium 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which politicians from Serbia and Montenegro weren't "pushing" and fueling anti-Croat propaganda?
About Milo, I told you already that we know what he was saying then. Still, he's now important and still influential political person in Montenegro, that now turned "pro-Croat". We have Croatian minority in Montenegro, so we're very interested having a president of Montenegro that has pro-Croat attitudes.
Political realities are such. Politics is prostitution. Politika je kurba. To je tako. Bilo i ostalo. Kubura 10:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which weren't anti-Croat? Well that's generalizing. How about Predrag Popovic, Zoran Djindjic, Miroljub Labus, Boris Tadic or all those anti-Serb politicians (oddly, Serbia is the only country in the world which has speakers that agitate against it as well as their nation)?
I've discovered that, while pre-iekavism obviously affected Stephen Nemanya's title (Стѣфань), Stephen II Kotromanic's was affected heavily by pre-ekavism (Стефань). Quite fascinating... --PaxEquilibrium 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long, but unfortunately I cannot tranlsate as I do not know croatian technical vocabulary. I did ask a few people of croatian origin in Canada who are engineers but none could come up with something. I will keep trying and if something comes up I'll post it here. Best of luck.P jeric 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Croat Canuck 
Go Leafs Go 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
