Talk:Serbs of Dubrovnik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethnicity is a matter of self-identification. Therefore, there's no such thing as a political declaration of ethnicity. You're basically giving yourself the right to decide for some people what ethnicity they are. I personally know a Ragusan Serb Catholic, I'd love to see you explain to him that he's really something else, and that his ethnic identity is merely political. --estavisti 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As in many areas of former Yugoslavia ethnic identity was not strictly defined, so as in for example Montenegro where part of Orthodox population define themselfs as Montenegrins and part as Serbs part of population native catholic population of old Dubrovnik affilated more with Serb and part to Croat nation, so as in case with today's Montenegro u can have two brother's having declaring themselfs differently. So you can c my point that Serbs Catholics in Dubrovnik were not geneticly or in anyother way different from the rest of the population except for their affiliation to Serbian nation. And also other point your friend probably declares himselfs as Serb cause he belive that Ragusans were originaly Serbs and became Croats through time. Luka Jačov 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All you say is true, but that's what ethnicity is. What's the genetic difference between an inhabitant of Zagreb and Belgrade? Ethnicity isn't based on genetic difference, it's based on what people identify themselves as. Either way, how's the new phrasing? --estavisti 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Catholic Serbs 2 Pre-War Serb population 3 Yugoslav Wars 4 Explanation 5 ? 6 War in Croatia

[edit] Catholic Serbs

Removed this statement Historically, a number of significant people from Dubrovnik considered themselves Serb Catholics, including some members of its noble families.^{[citation needed]} because it is disputed, unsourced from a credible source. Please do not put in until there are credible references. iruka 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed:

Historically, a number of significant people from Dubrovnik considered themselves Serb Catholics, including some members of its noble families.[1]

because the statement is too vague. Please be specific - who are the significant people and what is their significance? The source cannot be verified without membership of the site - so pls quote the relevant extracts. iruka 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just occured to ask what is the purpose of mentioning that these Serbs were Catholic - either they were Serb or they weren't, religous affiliation should be irrelevant for the article. iruka 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They're notable, simply by virtue of the fact that there are academic papers about them. You can see enough to verify the statement on first page for free. And how can you question the significance of their Catholicism? Serbs are closely identified with Orthodoxy, so any Catholic Serbs are interesting and unusual. Why should religion be irrelevant for the article? That seems a very strange position to take. --81.132.189.183 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The academic paper concerns the confessional rule and the need to qualify it. It then talks about elements in the intelligentsia espousing Serb national ideology or political goals - this could mean anything such a panslavism, illyrian movement to greater Serbia, all relevant to the mid 19th century - the period under examination, and how these factors influence the creation or unravelling of national ideologies. That is a different to saying that they were Catholic Serbs.

Thus we come back to my original point - and that is challenging you to come up with specific information becaus ethe vague nature of the claim leaves it open to interpretation and is unsubstantiated - who were these catholic Serbs and what is there significance to Dubrovnik Serbs or history of Dubrovnik. The significance should be quantified. I also know that there is significant controversy over the term b/c it represents WP#NOTBATTLEGROUND, and I beleive was serious enough to warrant deletion of a page of that title. Thus I have reverted until some substantial, (well-sourced) information can be provided. iruka 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy to include specifics and the term once you provide something that is verifiable. The statement is too vague as it stands. iruka 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But a number indeed did were Serbs - the greatest Dubrovniker of the 19th century, Medo Pucic (Orsatto di Pozza) was indeed a Serb nationalist. There is a number of other people, too - and not only Dubrovnik, but its surroundings too (Balthazzar Bogisic from Cavtat, etc). That's nothing unnatural. --PaxEquilibrium 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In the age of pan-slavism, the Illyrian movement, what exactly does it mean. That he supported Serbia as a vehicle to overthrow AUstrian occuupation, or that he was a Serb? I think such references are fraught with an immense scope for misinterpretation outside of the context of the political oppression of the time, and given that we are coming from a post-Yugoslavia era, exhausted by any pan-slavic sentiment. Mention any pan-Slavic sentiment today in Croatia, and people cool over b/c they have bad memories of the Yugoslavia's and equate it (quite accurately) as a Greater Serbia vehicle. iruka 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-War Serb population

Removed the statement that it was significantly higher and replaced with census figures from 1991, sourced from the ICTY indictment for General Pavao Strugar for the bombing of Dubrovnik. iruka 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

? You don't consider 210% significantly higher? --PaxEquilibrium 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

210% on what base? And what is the size in the context of a larger population (3% differential). When you scale the change in the broader context of the cities population, and the communities small size, it is not what you call significant. As an example, a significant change occurred in the number of Serbs in Croatia from 12% to 4.5%. iruka 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yugoslav Wars

Added this section because the inclusion of the 6.7% of Dubrovniks population that were Serbs in a enlarged Serb state (all Serbs in one state), the notion that the Croat population were really Catholic Serbs were rationales for the attempt to conquer the city and thus directly relevant to this stubb.

To the person that deleted this section, pls discuss before doing so. I have returned it - I thought the connection was obvious. The city gets bombarded in an attempt to incorporate all Serbs in one state, including Dubrovnik Serbs. Their presense was the pretext, in addition to the notion that Croats in Dubrovnik were really 'Catholic Serbs'. The reduction in the population of Serbs form 6.7% to 3.3% also coincides with this event and its impact on the interethnic relations i.e. there is still resentment in Dubrovnik to Serbs & Montenegrans over the bombing and siege, as testified by vandalism to vehicles carrying Serb number plates, the beating of a Serb journalist and cameranman at a Waterpolo european club finals game. iruka 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Added section, including visual schematic of damaged areas, and link to the film footage. iruka 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I deleted the external link. It is irrelevant to this article. The proper place is History of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik, or some similar article.--81.132.189.183 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for the "History" - it is more appropriate for the main article. What connection to the Serbs of Dubrovnik have to the shelling of the city? That they were shelled? They have no more connection to it than the city as a whole.--81.132.189.183 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is:

• the city was shelled to include those Serbs (despite their small number) in a Greater Serbian state, as well as the false pretext of protecting said Serbs - from [[2]] From the political viewpoint, the fate of Dubrovnik was sealed in June with the armament of eastern Herzegovina and when Mr. Mihalj Kertes (Serbian Parliament Delegate) announced that Dubrovnik is to become "the capital of Serbian Herzegovina". Throughout the summer, the Serbian political extremists were talking about "the 10000 Serbs who are being terrorized in Dubrovnik". There are 4735 Serbs (6,7%) living in Dubrovnik and apart from certain isolated incidents of illegal arms house search the cases of terrorizing" were not recorded.
• it has affected inter-ethnic relations in the city;
• the Serb population before vs after war was half as much;
• the first victim in the Serb attack on the city was himself a Serb, the poet Milan Milisic.

The Serbs of Dubrovnik are integral to the attack on the city. Pls address these points directly before making any change. iruka 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am more than happy for you to add to the section - which I have renamed - maybe you can write about the difference views among the Dubrovnik Serbs, and the main exponents, their respective roles - some of whom helpded defend the city from the JNA and Serb paramilitaries. But the Croatian war of independence was a defining moment for Dubrovnik and Serbs of Croatia. You cannot ignore this "elephant in the room" part of the article - it is just too much of a big ticket item to censor. iruka 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

|Returned section and rewrote to include what is in talk pages and thus make it more directly liked to subject of article. iruka 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

You removed the total notion of the the number of Catholic Serb Dubrovnikers, Marinko (allegedly the Serbian nationalist feeling held majority throughout the 19th century - Karl von Czoernig for instance, in his numerous demographic researches of the Habsburg monarchy, listed that the Dubrovnik municipality had a Serb majority. --PaxEquilibrium 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misconception, confusing pan Slavic or pro-Serb sentiment, in the aftermath of the shock of having their independence removed by Napolean. Political sympathy for a neighbouring country's cause and the existence of trade relations dictated by geographic proxity does not somehow change a community's national affiliation. The population is overwhelmingly Croat today, was for the two Yugoslavias, during the Hasburg period and during the Dubrovnik Republic.

However there was an influential Serb population during the later 18th/19th century, particular in the intelligentsia. But they still did not constitute the majority.

Can you clarify what you mean by You removed the total notion of the the number of Catholic Serb Dubrovnikers. All I have done is removed a vague statement and asked the person to supply specifics. I also fail to see the point of stating the groups faith unless there is a background explanation (e.g. it was a requirement of citizenship) - a Serb is a Serb regardless of religious affiliation. If you can remove the ambiguities backed up by credible sources, then I am more happy to include a statement on prominent individuals. iruka 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War in Croatia

I have changed one of the references to War of independence. As explained in one of the edits, Dubrovnik did not have a Serb majority that was trying to seccede from Croatia (one of the reasons given against War of Independence reference on another talk page). It was a clear case of a Croatian city fighting a larger conflict for independence.

Also, war in Croatia can be a reference to the civil war of WW2, the various battles with the Turks, or the battle of the Bosnian highlands. Croatian war of independence is quite unequivical in what it is referring to. iruka 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is simply POV. Also, there is no ambiguity - what other war was there in Croatia in 1991 and 1992? --Еstavisti 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about ambiguity. But how is it POV? There was a war, and in Dubrovnik it was over independence. The description should specifically capture the nature of the conflict. This article concerns Durbrovnik, and the arguments against calling the conflict a War of Independence, do not apply in the Dubrovnik case.

It can be equally argued that war in Croatia is POV, considering all the other conflicts that are labelled War of Independence, [[3]].

The relevant article is call Croatian War of Independence.

Also there are two references. I left one as War in Croatia, the other as War of Independence. I think that represents a compromise, and you should leave it at that. iruka 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)