Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Serbs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholic Serbs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 6 v 2 in favour of DELETE

  • I think this page should be deleted because, simply, it's a- lie. There are/were no Catholic Serbs as described in user Igor's page, and the whole stuff is just an example of Greater Serbian ideology. However, since there had been, in the mid- and 2nd half of 19th century a few prominent figures who declared thus (Matija Ban, Pero Budmani,...)- a sign of growth pains of Serbian and Croatian national ideologies at the time, there is an option some material could be incorporated in Greater Serbia article. Other than that- no group mentioned in this page ever identified themselves as "Serbs", and a few personal choices are not the criterion for anything. Mir Harven 10:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is classical Mir Harven Croat chauvinist nonsense.
Yawn. Gotta feeling of impending doom, eh ?
    • He himself admits that there were prominent examples of Catholic Serbs in history (Matija Ban, Pero Budmani) this is merely an explanation of the issue and I will write more about it at a later date. I am busy right now but will take the time to answer all of your issues. --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Poor soul probably hadn't noticed that individual choices are not the issue here. Orthodox Croats (field marshall Svetozar Borojević, writers and culture figures like Demetar, Bude Budisavljević, Stefan Pejaković, Danilo Blanuša, ...) are not the issue, either. The issue is false atribution of regional Croat ethnic group to Serbian ethnicity- just like one would count Gascoynes as English or Yorkshire inhabitants as French. Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. Why? Because of fundamental Wikipedia premise Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research., and for the text written in article there is no whatsoever proof, either in written document or in reality, but is pure fiction. As written above, it could be added to article Greater Serbia, as part of such nationalist propaganda, but as standalone article it cannot stand. SpeedyGonsales 11:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is propaganda. My ancestors were from group called Šokci (see article), and we declare ourselves as Croats.
The false spelling resulted in deletion, but also false atribution. Relković will be put where he belongs in the process.http://www.mvp.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=208 , http://www.univ.trieste.it/~linline/pagine/primo/lett_serba_croata_I/programma.htm Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Igor, by what right you think you can make conclusions and generalization about large group of people, based on YOUR interpretation, instead of their own national identity? Krešimir 10:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • Region of Slavonia is part of Croatia: our culture, tradition and language. Propositions in this text are plainly incorrect for all mentioned groups. Krešimir 12:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, this is what the Catholic encyclopedia 1911 says for Djakovo in Slavonia:
    • --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The musty edition of Catholic encyclopedia has been commented upon. Wanna more ? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04510a.htm "..The executive head of the Croats was the "ban" a title still in use, and he had unlimited power as leader and governor of the people. Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, was compelled to abandon his provinces in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula. At that time the Croats occupied the following provinces: Illyricum Liburnia, Pannonia, Dalmatia, and a part of Histria, now known respectively as Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Istria, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their kinsmen, the Serbs, settled in Montenegro, Northern Albania, Old Servia, and the western part of the Servian Kingdom. The cities of Zara (Zadar or Jadera), Trau (Trogir or Tragurion), Spalato (Spljet), and Ragusa (Dubrovnik), on the Dalmatian coast, and the islands Veglia (Krk) and Arbe (Rab or Absorus), in the Adriatic, remained Latin in character. Elsewhere, however, the assimilative power of the Croats was stronger and the Latin race disappeared." ..Bosnia and Herzegovina ? Huh.....Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • This is just more of the same POV that Igor has kept pushing from the day he arrived. Even if we allow of the whole fairly flawed premise to pass as the truth, it's a blunt flamewar target and not fit for an encyclopedia. I suggest moving it to User:Igor/Catholic Serbs at least, if not deleting it completely. --Joy [shallot] 12:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Joy, this is just like the Bunjevci and Rudjer Boskovic issue, at first you accused me of pushing POV yet then you came to the conclusion that I was much more NPOV than Mir Harven who would have you believe that the Bunjevci are nothing less than Croats despite the historical evidence proving otherwise. --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bunjevci were & are just a regional Croatian group. Of course-due to fear and Serbian pressures a part of them living in Vojvodina "opted" (or, panically fled) to an invented quasi-nation "Bunjevci". Eh-it's not easy to be Croat in Serbia now, or in past 20 ys and more. Those who threw in their lot with the pan-Serbian thugs will share common doom. You play, you pay. Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um, please stop embarrassing yourself by completely misrepresenting my views on those issues. If only other people just couldn't read, eh? --Joy [shallot] 22:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd say the thing is more elaborate: user Igor's recent changs on pages on Bokeljs, Greater Serbia etc. show a pattern-obviously, he tries to sell the notion that Croats eyed in Garašanin's plan are, "in fact"-Serbs. Hence denial of Croathood of Dubrovnik, Boka Croats, even Slavonians and greater chunk of Bosnia and Dalmatia. It's not sime slip. There is a system in this madness. Mir Harven 18:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mir Harven keeps claiming that Catholics made a majority of the population of Boka Kotorska although he has not given a single figure to prove it. All of the Austrian censa (and Venetian before that) claim the exact opposite, 2/3 of Orthodox and 1/3 Catholics.
The censa were made in the 2nd half of the 19th century. And- this user has spurted out the truth, inadvertently. The issue here are the Catholics in Boka who were and are Croats-from Zmajević to Sbutega, from Maro Dragović to Pečarić. http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/009e-pecaric.htm Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Furthermore Mir Harven has proven himself unworthy many times.
Kriste eleison, kyrie eleison. Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He writes about subjects he knows little about. The fact that Vrmac is in the Boka was news to him yet he waged an editwar with me for deleting a pleonasm of his (Boka Kotorska and Vrmac penninsula). --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dont wriggle about nonissues. Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is not propaganda ! Catholic Serbs were reality in past times. You can not vote about such notorious matter !! --Marjan, 17:36, 29 Oct 2004
Notes from Catholic Enciclopedia:
Stefan Nemanja, Grand Serbian Župan was a Catholic, his brother Vlkan, as lord of Antivari and Cattaro, was also closely connected with the Catholic Church.
Irrelevant, because this was before the establishment of Serbian Orthodox Church. In the same sense, Simeon Studio was "Catholic". Evidently, "Catholic" here refers to Roman Catholic, or any kind that is neither Eastern Orthodox nor Reformed/Protestant. Mir Harven 18:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Relevant, will write about that too later. --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since 1848 the Catholic Serbs, who are in large part subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, have bee under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of Diakovo, in Slavonia. Although freedom of religion was constitutionally guaranteed by the Congress of Berlin, the position of the Catholic Church is a disadvantageous one, as the Orthodox clergy put various difficulties in the way of parochial work. In the course of the nineteenth century negotiations were several times begun for the erection of a Latin bishopric in Servia. Bishop
--Marjan, 17:36, 29 Oct 2004
Again-as has been shown for the umpteenth time, the new advent from 1908 (or 1911, I forgot) is almost completely unreliable with regard to "these parts". For instance-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Reliability_of_historical_records Mir Harven 18:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unreliable in what way? From what I see it is quoted quite often on Wikipedia. In fact some articles are basically posted from the Encyclopedia. --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yawn.....see below. New advent is as reliable as Stalin's censa. Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. Standard nonsense by Igor, wiki is not for his serb-nationalist propaganda that has no basis in fact. GeneralPatton 20:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense or no, it still qualifies as original research and thus doesn't belong here. There are no citations or links to peer-critiqued works, so even its validity is in doubt. Inky 01:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just a second, I will give sources. --Igor 20:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Trembling in expectation Mir Harven 00:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The Catholic Encyclopedia may be a weak resource in this area, but citing it is not "original research". The topic itself seems a reasonable one to me, and one need not be an advocate of a Greater Serbia to be interested in the question of whether there have been Catholic Serbs (and, for that matter, Orthodox Croats). I wish I had sources on what I'm about to say, but in the 1980s I remember hearing an interview with someone bemoaning that as what was then still Yugoslavia was becoming more polarized, the few Catholic Serbs and Orthodox Croats had changed either their religion or their ethnic identification. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Here, we're not dealing with personal choices. There had been Catholic Serbs and Orthodox Croats- but, this was a matter of personal preferenc, not a significant part of polularion. Should we have enties like Protestant Italians or Religious Stalinists ? Mir Harven 10:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It certainly isn't a "subgroup" like the article claims. This is like having Hindu Germans or Buddhists Saudis. GeneralPatton 13:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is propaganda.--Magi 11:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Propaganda? What does it propagate? Nikola 17:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This answer is only for uninformed readers (Nikola is well informed and he really don't need this explanation). Article propagate false and unsupported facts about mentioned groups, despite of their own national declaration. Krešimir 10:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe usefully link[edit]

According to recent authoritative statistics the race question in Austria-Hungary is decidedly complicated and diversified. In the kingdoms and provinces represented in the Reichsrath in Vienna there are nearly 10,000,000 Germans and 18,500,000 non-Germans. Of these nearly 17,500,000 are Slavs. Among these Slavs, the Croats and Serbs number 780,000, chiefly in Dalmatia, while there are in all 660,000 Orthodox and nearly 3,500,000 Greek Uniats.

In Hungary, with its subject kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, there are 8,750,000 Magyars, 2,000,000 Germans, and 8,000,000 other non-Magyars. Of these, 3,000,000 are Roumanians and well over 5,000,000 Slavs. The Croats, or Roman Catholic Serbs, number 1,800,000, and their Orthodox brothers are 1,100,000 in number. All told, Hungary has nearly 11,000,000 Roman Catholic subjects, 2,000,000 Greek Uniats, and 3,000,000 Orthodox. In this connection it should be remembered that the Patriarchate of the Orthodox Serb Church has been fixed at Karlowitz, under Hungarian rule, for over two centuries.

http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/history/eigic/chapter8.html

"The Croats, or Roman Catholic Serbs" - This statement precisely shows that the whole thing is just a propaganda piece of Greater Serbian ideology. GeneralPatton 13:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One of many examples of history-dabblers these parts have been "victims" of for centuries. I've earlier collected just a tiny fragment of historical records, for all to enjoy. So, this is it, and I cannot see "Catholic Serbs". But I can see that propaganda wars are beyond, beyond,....capacity for information storage of "outsiders". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Coup_de_grace Mir Harven 16:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Boys, you are so funny with yours typical "argumentation" when you havent evidence about anything you try to claim.
Aha..let's see..Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All you knows is constantly repeating of phrases like "great serbia" "serbian propaganda" etc. This is not enought boys !

Boys yourself, troll. Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very bad. Why is Catholic Encyclopedia weak source ?!

It is dated. It reflects info and knowledge of the pre-WW1 era. It's obsolete not only in the same manner the Britannica from the same time (1900-1920s) is obsolete (frequently quoted obnoxious racialist rubbish), but because of internal inconsistency. Should I spell it out again ? The entries on Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Dubrovnik are mutually conflicting and contradictory, especially with regard to ethnic-denominational matters and history. In short- it's a corpse, with all its dated lingo and info. Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is then relevant source I asking myself ?

Relevant source on Internet with regard to ethnic history of the region ? There is no such thing. Only differing views one can see for themselves as external links on various wiki pages. Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I see Logan Marshall (who was not Serb) was also considered to be the promoter of "serbian propaganda" as the Austro Hungarian authoritative statistic was which he used in his work !

Logan who ? Who's this guy, anyway ? Anyone has heard of him ? What "authoritative Austro-Hungarian statistics" ? I've got data from this sources that are reprinted in Croatian statistics books galore, and there was not "Catholic Serb" entry in any Habsburg statistics whatsoever. They got 2 (among others, of course) entries: denomination and language. Denomination was catholic, israelite, mohammedan, greek-eastern, lutheran,... and language was german, hungarian, illyrian (former appellation)-later croatian or serbian, serbo-croatian-and, that's all. As far as Austro-Hungarian censa are concernde, there was no possibility for a segment of population to be classified as "Catholic Serbs", since "Serbs" (ethnically) was not an option, just language that has been recorded in "dual manner" croatian or serbian, serbo-croatian. So- who's that Logan anyway ? Authority on-what ? Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horror !

  • The question of Catholic Serbs in past times have nothing to do with New Age Hindu Germans or Buddhists Saudis.
Oh, yeah. So why there are no such a species in 1500, 1600, 1700, ..1900, 2000 ? Except for a few individuals, just like Orthodox Croats ? Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Stefan Nemanja Great Serbian Župan and founder of famous and ancient Serbian dinasty of Nemanjici was Catholic!! BOŠKO
Can you comprehend a trivial argument or what ? This was before the establishment of Serbian Orthodox Church, back in 1200s. And the article harps on "Catholic Serbs" now-and, as I see, in past 2-6 centuries
Taking the risk of attempting to talk with you, I will have to ask: why is that important? The article talks about Catholic Serbs in general, and doesn't cover any specific time period; even if it would, that would be grounds for expansion, not for deletion. Nikola 17:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(so-1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s,.), just to establish a long wished for serbdom of Boka Kotorska and Dubrovnik. Nice example is edit war on Bokeljs. Here all the frustrations of greater serbian debacle are laid bare. Mir Harven 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion proposed so far are:
    • That this is original research. To describe the article, it begins with an introduction on how did some Serbs became Catholic, then it has a table of ethnic groups which are Catholic and considered Serbian, and a list of people who were Catholics and considered Serbs. Nothing of this is original research. It could be made clear that Catholic Serbs are not a homogenous ethnic group, but that is matter of clicking on "edit this page" and not of deleting the article.
      • Yup, "article" is written in a scientific style, but if something is fiction(imagination), it stays fiction no matter how good it is structured or presented.
        • That statement is true, but what it has to do with the article? Nikola
    • That what's written in the article is wrong. Even if that would be true, it is not grounds for deletion. Catholic Serbs do exist.
      • Yup, Serbs have right to be of any confession they choose, be it Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, Zen Buddhist or Scientologists. But I don't think that anybody will write about Buddhist Serbs, and they DO exist, because of two reasons: 1) they are not significant group, and 2) there is no political interest in it.
        • There are several Serbian subgroups which are Catholic, and several notable Serbs which are Catholics. So, this article is about a notable topic, even if it would be nothing more than a list of them. Nikola
          • There are NO notable Serbian subgroups which are Catholic, and of notable Serbs born in Croatia I see only Ivo Andric, not only because on Wikipedia page is written following: "Andrić belongs to those writers that are hard to classify: he was both Serbian and Croatian writer...", but as more then half of his opus is in Serbian language, so have it. But one notable man is usually not a reason enough even for a list...SpeedyGonsales
      • For this article above point 1) stands, but sadly, you and Igor have political agenda.
        • Really? Which political agenda do I have, and how do you know that I have it? Nikola
          • My error. To stand behind falsified article you don't need agenda, you could have access to false data for a long period of time, to not have access to true data, and you could now think false is true, and vice versa. I apologize. But 6 reverts on page Republic of Serbian Krajina does not sound 'like' reasonable, but again, as Shakespeare says: "You never can tell" SpeedyGonsales
    • That this is not notable. If there is an article on Slavic Muslims, there could be one on Catholic Serbs. Of course, not every combination of religion and ethnicity is notable, but some are, and this is. For example, I would love to read on Christian Arabs or Christian Palestinians.
      • Well, if you take care and write about other not notable Serbian religious groups such as Muslim and Buddhist, you can keep your article, if it is written fairly, which currently it is not. So my opinion is that fair solution is to either delete it or move it to proper place, as I already proposed above (to Greater Serbia propaganda article, which is nationalistic, but it is clearly so, and not disguised as truth). SpeedyGonsales 13:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The article isn't "mine" in any way, I never edited it. Yes, Muslim Serbs should also have an article, bud Buddhist Serbs are very small in number and not notable. Notable Buddhists groups might include Buddhist Chinese, Buddhist Japanese and Buddhist Indians. Either way, I believe that Igor intends to make an article on Muslim Serbs also and so your wish will be fulfulled. Nikola
        • Hmmm…I’m not sure whether I got this correctly, but if Greater Serbia article is concerned- there is nothing “nationalist” in this text (whichever the meaning of the word “nationalist”.) NPOV considerations have, essentially, diluted the article that should’ve been written in much sharper and less exculpatory manner for Serbs, since this carcinogenic ideology is still dominant among them- as is very visible from this particular fuss. A simple copy/paste from GS Talk is more than enough to show the GS mindset & its trademark, lies galore:
        • Looks like nothing has changed. OK, just a brief, reduced tally:
        • the claim that Dubrovnik is a «Serb town» was «opposed by Croatian nationalists». I beg your pardon ? It is opposed by virtually all population of Dubrovnik, by Croatian legal authorities and by international community as represented in the UN. What the heck are these statements doing here ? They belong to the lunatic asylum of deranged Serbian propaganda.
        • the intention to prove that "Greater Serbia" was a conglomerate concept of "Anti-Serb" conspiracy, born in Austria-Hungary, but reborn in Communist Komintern. Nope. This concept is indigenously Serbian geopolitical plan- as can be see by many transcripts from Slobodan Milošević trial
        • claims about imaginary Serbian "good position" in KUK Monarchy when compared to other Slavic speaking nations like Czechs, Croats or Poles. This has been shown to be an illusion long since, as any serious historian knows.
        • the name was mentioned for the 1st time in writings of Serbian socialist S. Marković in 1872. As for Garašanin's plan- it is evidently a plan for building a sort of Serbian empire on the ruins of the collapsing Ottoman one. Nothing bad per se, but it is the cornerstone of Serbian ideology ever since, even when historical processes had made it obsolete
        • no mention of the Black Hand and their true nature in the former text
        • no mention of ORJUNA and "marriage" between Greater Serbia concept and that of unitary Yugoslavism, culminating in king Alexander's dictatorship
        • completely twisted presentation of the events in 1980s-1990s.
        • This article does not depict the development and the nature of GS concept. More, it consciously falsifies it, and I cannot say that any scholastic nitpicking over Garašanin (especially having in mind Black Hand, ORJUNA, Chetniks, Moljević, Memorandum SANU etc.- the entire procession from Vuk Karadzic to Radovan Karadzic) makes any difference. Mir Harven 17:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will clarify, nationalism can be twofold: 1) I am proud to be .... (American, Croat, Serb, Nigerian, Korean, etc); 2) nationalism as nazi in Third Reich, other races are not worthy to exist, they should be obliterated, their countries conquered and annexed.
Great Serbia article is a second kind of nationalism, together with this Catholic Serbs imagination, but as we today have articles about Nazi Germany, to remind us to never again allow that, I think there should be also place for Serbian propaganda which was cause for war, to remind us forever that if somebody again start spreading it, that it is time to prepare for new war, as sick ideas always quicker get masses moving then clever one. Also there should be place for ideas that Serbs are oldest race in the world, that Egyptians were originaly Serbs, and that pyramids were built by Serbs (I am not joking, I heard that personally from lot of "well educated" Serbs. Indoctrination is possible, even today in time of internet and sattelite TV.) If something is plain rubbish, it is easy to delete it. But if that rubbish can cause war (and that happened only 9 years ago), I don't call it just rubbish, because it would be a mistake, but I call it propaganda and nationalism. Question that can arise is should articles with such content be marked as NATIONALISM (Nazi kind)? Once again, delete article, or move it where it belong, and if moved, it should be together with Serbian pyramids stuff. SpeedyGonsales 03:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Greater Serbia article is a complete load of senseless accusations of which maybe 10% are true and of those only 10% are meaningfull. Nikola 17:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is always nice to see how people use numbers in some "statistic" form, trying to substitute argument insufficiency. Krešimir 10:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Then, this was a misunderstanding, since I got the idea that presentation of GS ideology was not fair, as far as Serbs are concerned. I think it’s fair, but, hey- that’s their perception of reality, and they’ll have to live with its consequences. Mir Harven 22:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nikola 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • So the Catholic Encyclopedia and Logan Marshall are not good enough for Mir Harven ?! Maybe he should start to thinkhing what he talking about.

And who is that Mir Harven if Logan Marshall is nothing for him?! God ? It is very nice that you he got this datas from Croatian books - so he want to say that we must belive to him and to his sources and to consider Logan Marshall as lier. Dont be funny ! And so what if Stefan Nemanja was Catholic before the establishment of Serbian Ortodoy Church. The point is that he was Catholic. Promoter of Great Croatia and so named father of Croats Ante Starcevic considered him as Croatian. (very funny logic - all Catholics are Croats etc).

  • Yours only "argument" is again the same as it was before - cheap demagogic phraseology and propaganda ("great serbia" etc...). which is even not enought good as "argumetation" for SpeedyGonsales who has a screw loose. He started to claim how he heard nonsense about Egyptians etc. Yours motives of inquisition which you presents here is too thin - the end justifies the means. But this 21.Century boys. Yours metods are too much primitive.
  • It is also interesting when Croats trying to equate communism of Milosevichs regime with nazism etc. You have probably nightmares due to Croatian genocid against Serbs, Jews etc in WWII nazi Independent state of Croatia. More than half million Serbs were killed. They exstableshed even the concentacion camps for children which are killed with knifes etc. In this monster of state Serbs were considered as "Ortodox Croats" !

http://www.jasenovac.org/exhibits/index.asp

BOŠKO

  • This is not an opinion about the theme- “Catholic Serbs”, but pretty ordinary litany of Greater Serbia orphans. However, since jabber about sidetracks is not anything I’m interested in, I’ll repeat:
  • there are no credible Web pages on nuances of nationhood in former Yugoslavia. Sure, fragments do exist, but not broader picture
  • credible sources about national question, however, are available in following books:
  • Ivo Banac: National question in Yugoslavia (English and Croat translation)
  • Srećko Džaja: Konfessionalitaet und Nationalitatet in Bosnien, 1463- 1879 (German and Croat translation)
  • Ivo Banac: Dubrovačke teme (Croatian, on the phenomenon of Catholic Serbs in 19th century Dubrovnik)
  • Rade Petrović: Nacionalno pitanje u Dalmaciji (Serbian, on national differentiation in 19th century Dalmatia)
  • Čović et al: Greater Serbia: from ideology to aggression (English, a collection of Serbian ideology basic texts)
  • Josip Pečarić: Hrvati Boke Kotorske (Croatian, on Boka bay Croats)
  • More tha enough. Mir Harven 22:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With regard to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Civility i say: Maybe I was a bit out of line when mentioned pyramids, but that was only example how far propaganda went in last 10 years in Serbia, which was acid. We should stay on topic, and don't write about other subjects, this should be voting, not flame war about which country or people in history inflicted to whom more casualties. I am against any crime, and if anybody want to make article about casualties & crimes in WWII I won't object. But not here, on VfD page. As I have some formal historian education (not my major, but...) I took my time and for the first time checked some sources of Catholic Serbs ideas, and found that for some Serbian authors Constantine_Porphyrogennetos was weak source because he didn't mentioned Serbs before Christ, but relevant is recent work (20th century) by Olga Lukovic. I learned from my history classess that not all of early historians are 100% reliable, like Herodotus, who is in most cases reliable, but sometimes he writes some things which from 21st century perspective are obvious imagination, but if we have to compare ideas from 20th century with written data from 10th century, it is obvious which source is more reliable. I also serched for bio of Logan Marshall, and found that he wrote (edited) 2 (two) books, one mentioned above and one about a Titanic. So he is in fact journalist, and I even couldn't find when he was born, when was above book printed, anything. So that speaks for itself what a reliable source is used to back up propaganda.
I know that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it's not like Nupedia which had rigorous criteria for accepting the articles (the reason of its demise), but wikipedia should have some criteria. And lets put it this way:
  • first "evidence" of Catholic Serbs is Catholic Encyclopedia from 1911, other is recent "work" which is hardly to argue that it is not biased
  • against is all other data we have about medieval and later history
To me it still looks like original research of some Serb nationalists, not crime, but it should be placed where it belongs, in Greater Serbia dungeon, not in wikipedia space of free spirit and open source. SpeedyGonsales 16:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So ?[edit]

I'm beginning to show signs of unsatisfied curiosity: what now ? Is this initiative for deletion just a piece of lartpourlartism ? Mir Harven 15:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAICT the present count is:

  • Delete: 7
  • Keep: 4
  • Neutral: 1

The second count includes the anonymous "Boško" who hasn't got a username and is not a contributor -- may be ineligible. There are similar votes in the first count from people who don't contribute to this Wikipedia, but do on a foreign-language one (hr). Igor hasn't voted here explicitly, but he's the originator so I'm adding that implicitly. --Joy [shallot] 18:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...are you sure about your count ? As I see, there are 2 "keeps", Boško excluded. Then, I may have overlooked something in the chaos...Mir Harven 21:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_Serbs&oldid=1209368161"