Talk:Serbia

This page is still incoherent despite my last edit. Go back to the page history. Some of the old content should be restored. --Jiang 07:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most of the old content seems to be moved to History of Serbia. Nikola 15:18, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Serbia proper"

Avala, I gather from your comment ("VANDALISM! what is serbia proper? stop writing that!)" that you don't like the use of the term "Serbia proper". It is a common term in English (Google returns 9,560 results for it). I've noted its use in English in what I hope you consider an acceptable fashion. -- ChrisO 14:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it is confusing, I for one agree with Avala, Serbia proper is improper. Kosovo and Vojvodina are both part of Serbia proper. --Igor

I hate to join this argument, but 212.62.63.172's last edit was very unprofessional, and I felt as if I should provide some explanation for my revert. Please refer to the Library of Congress' Yugoslavia glossary, which gives the definition of Serbia proper as "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo; the ethnic and political core of the Serbian state." 212.62.63.172, unless you can provide a good argument against the term Serbia proper, I think it is a well-established term in the English language, whether it should be or not, and therefore deserves mention. Please voice your arguments on this talk page, so we can reach a consensus instead of engaging in an edit war. —Bkell 20:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree that it is a common term outside of Serbia, but it should also be noted that the term is controversial within Serbia, since it implies that the other parts are not 'properly' part of Serbia. There are political connotations with its use. Can we use it, but note that it is a loaded term? Mark Richards 17:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ok this term is not disliked it is not controversial it is just not used in Serbia, it is totally unknown. it is probably mistranslated to English. Maybe there is some completely different name for serbia proper in serbian like central serbia or something else which was really badly translated years ago and now that phrase stayed (Hey why Serbians still call Wienna - Bech? Because it is a human habit).You really can not find much pages on serbian that say serbian proper. But ok i think that article like it is now is perfectly all right.

i found some info that "proper" is just Raska region but not whole central Serbia(central serbia is the name used in books and everywhere)

The another example of name confusion is Republic of Serbia(Republika Srbija) and Serbian Republic(Republika Srpska). First one is normal Serbia and second one is part of Bosnia.

One should probably note the existence of the term uža Srbija (literally "narrower Serbia") as it was used during SFRY and probably still is, and it's probably more sympathetic to the nationalist cause. "Serbia proper" does certainly seem to be the common English usage. --Shallot 21:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The use of "proper" in this context has the following meaning, according to my Chambers' dictionary: "used immediately after a noun: strictly so called; itself, excluding others not immediately connected with it. We are now entering the city proper." Used in reference to Serbia, it has the meaning given by the Library of Congress definition quoted above: "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo." That is what "Serbia proper" means in English, nothing more. It's like saying "France proper" to distinguish European France from the Republic of France, which includes various non-European territories. -- ChrisO 22:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit irritated by certain non-native speakers of English presuming to know my own language better than I do. "Serbia proper" has no political meaning - it's purely a geographical term. Is that clear now? -- ChrisO 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just as I am getting irritated by certain non-native Serbians who presume to know my own country better than I do. I keep removing Serbia proper from the section about political subdivisions simply because it is not a subdivision. The text spells it out clearly, in English, for those that can read their own language. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, whether conciously or not, you are oftenly writing about politically loaded terms as if they are not politically loaded. Even if the phrase is not intended to have political meaning, it is percieved as if it is. Nikola 08:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understand your concerns Chris, but I think it is fair to say that there is a political angle to the phrase. For instance, if I were to use the phrase 'Spain proper' in connection with the Basque region, there would be controversy. I think it's use here is entirely appropriate, but there is no such thing as purely and non-political geography in South East Europe right now... Yours, Mark Richards 23:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is only a "political angle" because paranoid nationalists think that it's a sneaky way of saying that Kosovo and Vojvodina aren't part of Serbia. That meaning simply is not true. The term "Serbia proper" has been used for many years - well before the Yugoslav wars - and probably came into use to denote the difference between the core of Serbia and the provinces which it acquired in the early 20th century (Kosovo in 1912, Vojvodina in 1918).

Actually that's wrong, Kosovo was part of Serbia way before that, Vojvodina as well, but this is not the place for such a discussion, because after all this has nothing to do with Kosovo or Vojvodina, right? -- Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While they certainly are part of the modern Serbian state, they have often been distinguished in English from the "original Serbia" (i.e. pre-1912).

Serbia's borders before 1912 do not coincide with the borders of Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a very different situation to that of the Basque parts of Spain, which have been part of that country for nearly 500 years. As a matter of fact, "Spain proper" has been used, but only to refer to the distinction between European Spain and Spanish colonial possessions. -- ChrisO 23:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Castilla, Galicia, Andalusia, Catalonia, not Spain proper. However, this has nothing to do with Spain or the Basques either.--Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you Chris. Agreed. Mark Richards 23:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Why do you think everything has political connotation

I AM NOT A NATIONALIST! I am just pointing to difference between languages that's all. And you people who watch news whole day are going crazy of politics. If you didn`t know there are other things then politics in this world that we can argue about. Is it so hard to understand that in Serbia is used different term then the term in English? And i think that we have to write about that not just say it`s serbia proper and the end. we have to say that there are different terms ok? ChrisO maybe i don`t know your language as you do but imagine one thing-english is not official language in serbia !!!! THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SERBIAN AND ENGLISH AND IT`S NORMAL. So stop saying that it is disliked in serbia when people don`t use that term! I think I know better what is used in Serbia and what is not! OK? If I get an idea to call Scotland-English grass it doesn`t mean that people in UK are crazy and nationalists and sick if they don`t use it. They just never heard of such thing or it sounds funny in england or there is another term and OF COURSE that it is much better to use original term than the one made outside of country. Of course many people in USA and Australia don`t even know where is London and we are talking about region in one small country in southern Europe. They don`t even care but they will still argue like one woman from USA that was ready to bet that England is not in Europe....

BTW chriso serbia was originally "made" around kosovo and raska back in IX and X century not in 1912. SO I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT WE SAY HERE IN SERBIA WHEN SOMEONE IS TALKING YOU HOW TO DO SOMETHING BUT HE IS NOT INTO IT LIKE YOU ARE: "NEMOJ DA MI SOLIS PAMET" -DON`T PUT SALT IN MY MIND!!!!!

KOSOVO IS IN SERBIA FOR 1000 YEARS TWICE AS LONG THAN THE SPAIN THING ACCEPT IT PLEASE. SO KOSOVO IS NOT SERBIAN COLONY! OR MAYBE IT IS I MEAN WHEN SLAVIC PEOPLE CAME THERE PROBABLY SOME PEOPLE LIVED THERE 1000 YEARS AGO.

• DON`T SAY NOW THAT I AM NATIONALIST BECAUSE YOU WILL MAKE FOOL OF YOURSELF(ENGLAND WAS NOT ON BRITISH ISLE SINCE 1948-WHAT WOULD I BE IF I WOULD SAY THAT)- JUST TAKE A LOOK IN SOME HISTORY BOOK IF YOU HAVE ONE :(

Thanks - I guess that settles the issue then! Mark Richards 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim to have any authority on this issue at all. After following this debate, however, it sounds to me as if the term "Serbia proper" is an English term that has no counterpart in Serbian. It also sounds as if "Serbia proper" is used (in English) to refer to a geographical region of Serbia that is not an administrative division by itself, much like the terms "Midwest" and "New England" are used in the United States. Please correct me if either of these are incorrect.

I don't understand why some people are so hostile to the inclusion of this term. I will accept that there is no equivalent Serbian term, and that the concept of "Serbia proper" is unknown in Serbia, but this is the English Wikipedia, after all, and the term "Serbia proper" is used in English. I can also understand why people from Kosovo or Vojvodina may be offended by the implication that their provinces are somehow inferior or non-Serbian. However, the Wikipedia should not make moral judgements on the terms it includes. Since "Serbia proper" is a term used in English, I feel it should at least be mentioned in the article. Of course, it should also be mentioned that this term has no Serbian counterpart and is sometimes considered offensive. —Bkell 18:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)