User talk:Afrika paprika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 16, 2006 (UTC) to Nikola Tesla

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Predrag Stojaković

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Downwards 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Dado Pršo. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Lowg 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting references

Does it make you feel proud? Do you actually believe that by deleting facts you can just make them 'go away' and disappear forever? If you are that much annoyed with Serbs and their contribution to world's science, culture and history, why do you use those same Serbs to present them as something they never were - Croats? Serbs are Serbs, and if you don't like them as they are, stop forging the data about their ethnicity to make them more likable to your preferences, it is impolite. Marechiel 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not deleting "serbian references whenever possible". The facts are there, my goal however is to make the Tesla article more objective and neutral. It is you and the others who are constantly deleting and editing the fact he was born in Croatia and considered Croatia to be his homeland. User:Afrika Paprika 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Lowg 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All my edits are constructive and can easily be confirmed by facts. You cannot bully me into giving into your revisionism. You will get reported if you continue with your vandalism. User:Afrika Paprika 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You have not posted a single cited fact in all of your contributions. In two instances that I'm familar with, you have removed cited statements and references again and again with no explaination on talk, or cited sources for why you are going to remove it. That is vandalism. (example 1: Dado Prso, example 2: Nikola Tesla--Lowg 01:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did. Both are undisputable facts. Tesla was born in Croatia and considered Croatia to be his homeland thus it deserves to be mentioned. My edits are seeking to make the article about him more neutral as it is opposed to chauvinist version you are pushing in now. Also Prso is a Croat, those are his own words. --Afrika Paprika 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is mentioned. You are just removing the mention of his ethnicity, and if you see the talk page on Nikola Tesla article shows what you are doing is vandalism. --Lowg 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but no, I am not "just removing mention of his ethnicity" I am correcting the article. The only thing removed is at the start of the article which is irrelevant since the article explains in detail that he has been born into Serbian family in Croatia and that he took American citizenship. I wonder though what agenda do you have against more liberal and neutral article? It is what you are doing that is vandalism and not only that but trolling and revisionism. Afrika Paprika
Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, but in what was then Austria, and today Croatia, and didn't consider Croatia his homeland, but Yugoslavia.
At his time, and the time he spoke about it, Croatia was but a region in Yugoslavia, populated with both Serbs and Croats, and not a Croatian national state. Tesla isn't Croatian, as Heraclites isn't Turkish, nor Archimedes Italian, nor Josip Jelacic Serbian. His birthplace is in Croatian state, but it wasn't at the time of his birth. He lived to see independent Croatia only once in his life, when he was 85 (in 1941), and then he sided with Yugoslav King Peter II against his alleged "homeland". Tesla's homeland was, by his own words, Yugoslavia and Serbia, and his ethnicity Serbian and Yugoslavian, in the sense of integral Yugoslavism, where Yugoslavs are one people of the same race, language and tradition as Serbs.
Besides, it is more than clearly stated that his bithplace was at the time within Austria, and that today is in Croatia. Is there any dillema left for any reader not to know where Smiljan is? Tesla was born in Austria, on the territory that is today in Croatia. Should we play silly and add other "significant" facts that the area was originally Illyrian or Roman 2,000 years ago, that it belonged to Yugoslavia for more than 70 years, that it was/wasn't part of Serb Krajina in the 1990's, that the village was ethnically Serbian only 60 years ago, while today it isn't? Two dates are important: the time of Tesla's birth, to give the historical context, and present time, for the geographical accuracy. Tesla was born in the Military Frontier region of Austrian Empire, and his birthplace is today situated in Croatia.
Plus, what is so annoyng and frustrating with Serbian-American reference? (See the Discussion on Nikola Tesla page). Tesla was Serbian-American: an American of Serbian ethnic background, like there are Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, African-Americans etc. He could not possibly be "Croatian-American", because he wasn't an ethnic Croat. And what's the thing with recent editing Serbian-American to Serbian? Are we clear with the subtle distinction in between nationality and ethnicity? Tesla was an American of Serbian ethnic origin, and with his political activities and active cherishing of his Serbian culture, tradition, language and connections, he fully deserves to be called a Serb wherever possible. Finally, it was his wish, for the whole world to know that his deeds are "the deeds of a Serb". Marechiel 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but no. Tesla was born in Croatia which was at that time part of Austrian Empire(Habsburg Monarchy), if we would follow your logic Vuk S. Karadzic was born in Otttoman Empire. Also at the time he spoke it is clear that he meant Croatia. Also your example of Jelacic is wrong since Jelacic was born in Croatia since Petrovardin was part of Croatia since 17th century. Also there is nothing frustrating about Serbian or American references what is frustrating and annyoing is that you are trying to remove and hide the fact the man was born in Croatia, considered Croatia to be his homeland and by that fact is Croatian scientist. The only thing with Serbia(where he was only one or twice) is the fact he considered himself a Serb.
He also considered Yugoslavia his homeland, therefore he should be a Yugoslavian inventor (he wasn't a scientist!). He also considered Serbia, Austria and Hungary his homeland, therefore he should be Serbian/Austrian/Hungarian invenor. But he was neither, he was Serbian-American (do you comprehend what Serbian-American means?).
And Vuk Karadzic was born in what was at the moment Ottoman Empire, in the region that soon afterwards became the state of Serbia. Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, his birthplace became a part of Croatian state when he was 85, before that it was part of Austrian and Yugoslavian state. What's the point in forging the facts and the name of the state? Any independent Croatian state has been nothing but extremely hostile to Serbs, and Tesla wasn't born in such a state, but in a Serbian-Croatian region of multi-national and tollerant Austria. Marechiel 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that you are hopeless. Tesla was born in Croatia, considered it his homeland and thus belongs equally to Croatia as much he belongs to Serbia as an ethnic Serb. As I said you can rant as much as you want facts are there and there to stay and no matter what you say, write or falsify. Also he was both a scientist and inventor. Afrika paprika
Tesla wasn't born in Croatia, and isn't Croatian in any way, especially not in the way of modern Croatian state, which is a national state of Croats, while in Tesla's time, it was but a Serbo-Croat (not Croatian) region in a multi-national Empire. You should rather stop insulting nad take more interest in the man you are trying to present as a Croat - he was a unitarian Yugoslavicist and against any Croatian secession from Yugoslavia, and any perspective that would allow Croatian people to be any different from the Serbs. Plus, he was a supporter of Mihailovic's Chetniks. Presenting Voivod Djujic as Croatian would make more sense: he at least lived in Croatian state... Marechiel 11:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Tesla was born in Croatia since more specifcally in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia which was at that time constitutive part of Habsburg Monarchy with it's own administration and regional parliament which was far more than any other region besies Austria and Hungary had in the Empire. He alone admitted Croatia is his homeland and that he is proud of it. Also I seriously doubt he supported fascists(Chetniks) or anything similar since he was humanist and pacifist. Afrika paprika
He did not "admit it", it was one courteous private message that meant nothing, since in all his public speeches he called Yugoslavia and Serbia his homeland, and denied Croats any right for exclusive state separated from Serbs and Serbia. In fact, much more times he called Austria-Hungary his homeland, than he spoke of Croatia. And he did support King Peter II and Mihailovic's Chetniks who fought fascists (Croats), since both of his Governments (USA and Yugoslavian) did. Moreover, the leader of Chetniks was a Minister in his Yugoslavian Government. Marechiel 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dado Prso

Your edits to Dado Prso are quite disruptive, and in violation of Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and V. We have a reliable source that says that he is an ethnic serb, and do not have a reliable source that disagrees with this. While this is not vandalism, you can still be blocked for this if you continue to do so without any discussion. A better use of your time would be to find a reliable source that says he is not an ethnic serb. --Philosophus T 11:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits are not in violation of anything. The "reliable source" you are talking about is wrong as Prso himself has stated that(which I have provided sources as well) he is a Croat and that everything else is bullshit. I think he is by far more reliable source than the article from some ignorrant. I will continue to edit this false information as long as I can and you will find me I am quite persistant. Afrika paprika
Wikipedia does not present the truth. Rather, it presents reports by reliable sources. Since the AFP is a reliable source, we need to report on what it says even if it is wrong, not disregard it because of the error. The appropriate thing to do is to add that the AFP states ..., but (some other reliable source) states .... --Philosophus T 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that AFP is reliable source. It's a news service as any other and it makes mistakes. This is a mistake by them. I have reliable sources which repeat exact words of Prso saying he is a Croat....on more than one occasion. You and and some others here disregarded it which is your problem actually. Afrika paprika
They do make mistakes sometimes, yes. All sources do. But since that is apparently one of only a few sources on the subject, the discrepency should be noted in the article. Otherwise, if someone reads that article, and the Wikipedia article, they will most likely think that Wikipedia is wrong. Furthermore, I don't see the sources that you are talking about. You should add a reference in a similar manner to the reference to the AFP article if you have such reliable sources. I really have very little knowledge or interest in the matter of Serb/Croat ethnicity, which I think is quite childish on the whole. I just noticed that you seemed to be disregarding WP:V in your edits, and other editors seemed to be disregarding the fact that you are not vandalising, and that their test templates were entirely inappropriate and could be seen as personal attacks. --Philosophus T 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no discrepency, AFP article is just wrong and thats that. Both articles I have are in Croatian and have never been translated or mentioned in any foreign source(though for what reason is not clear to me), however they are there. One of the sources where Prso plainly states he is a Croat is still on the official site of Croatian Football Association(HNS - Hrvatski Nogometni Savez). The other with the title "I am a Croat and everything else is bullshit" has been published in 'Sportske Novosti'(Sport News) which is most distinguished sport news daily in Croatia. Both are mentioned in the talk page of the same article yet certain memebers disregarded this fact and continue to push for the false information....and may I notice these users are mainly Serbs who are also ashamed that certain Serbian sportsmen and other people were born in Croatia. Also there is nothing childlish with the matter of Serb or Croat ethnicity, at least no more than with any other ethnicity. And finally I have nothing against Serbs nor any other user here, I just want this article to be according to Prso's own statements and to be truthful. --Afrika paprika
Wikipedia does not report on the truth, it reports on what the sources for the article say. If your sources are not reliable sources or if they cannot be added to the article for some reason, then we must report that Prso is a Serb even if he isn't. That is just how Wikipedia is. Prso's own statements are not considered reliable unless they are published in a reliable source that is included in the article. The AFP is considered a reliable source. If the AFP article is just caused by a mistake, then feel free to contact AFP about it. Otherwise, we must report on what it says. --Philosophus T 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly thats quite an idiotic policy. But anyway the articles: "Dado Prso:I am a Croat everything else is bullshit" - http://www.index.hr/clanak.aspx?id=172002 ; Interview after 2004 EC game with France - http://www.hns-cff.hr/vijesti.asp?id=56 (official Croatian Football Association website). I'd say these are more than reliable sources unlike AFP who speculates. Afrika paprika
Then when you make your edit to Prso, add something like "Although ... describes him as an ethnic Serb [reference], ... and ... describe him as ...[references]". An edit like that will be much more effective. --Philosophus T 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Your extremely high number of reverts to the Dado Pršo article over the last few days are unacceptable. Revert wars are highly unproductive and disruptive to Wikipedia. I can see you've been informed of the 3-revert rule, and have chosen to take that as license to revert as often as you like as long as it's not more than 3 times in a day. When you return, I suggest you place a tag such as {{disputed}} on the article and continue the discussion on the talk page, and stop reverting. You may contest this block by adding {{unblock|reason}} to this page, which you can still edit. Mangojuicetalk 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again

You are re-blocked for jumping into the same revert wars right after you block. Please explain your changes in article talk pages in cases of disagreements, or you will continue to be blocked for disruptive behavior. `'mikka (t) 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Samo da znaš da od sada pratim sve tvoje izmene i da ću svako sranje koje napraviš u bilo kom članku revertovati. Ceo dan sam na netu, i imam vremena za to veruj mi. Ili malo smiri svoj nacionalizam i postani konstruktivan korisnik, ili pređi na neki nacionalistički forum. Hvala. PANONIAN (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Poljubit ces me u guzicu. Sve sto ti "revertujes" ja cu revertirati nazad. Svoje velikosrpske proljeve ostavi za neki drugi sajt. User:Afrika paprika

Warning number two

Ne znaš s kim se kačiš fašistička pičkice, ali ćeš to shvatiti pre ili kasnije. Zato bolje pali sa Wikipedije odmah da ne trošiš svoje beskorisno vreme, jer ozbiljno ti kažem da te neću pustiti da napraviš ni jednu jedinu izmenu iz koje izvire mržnja prema Srbima. Fašisti zadojeni rasizmom kao ti nam ne trebaju na Vikipediji, a veoma brzo ćeš biti ponovo blokiran ako nastaviš tako. PANONIAN (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Super mi se gace tresu. Kao sto rekoh mozes me samo poljubit u dupe. Inace ironicno je da ti mene nazivas fasistom, mozda da se pogledas u ogledalo bi shvatio neke stvari. Afrika paprika
Ja nemam šta da shvatim, ja sam pacifista i protivim se svakom obliku fašizma, a ti se visoko kotiraš na skali zadojenosti fašizmom. PANONIAN (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL...daj ne lupetaj gluposti. Molio bih te da me ne zamaras svojih glupostima vise. Zahvaljujem. Afrika Paprika 15:32 13 August 2006

(UTC)

Prestani pisati da je Ivana Milicevic hrvatska glumica jeli nije NIKADA ZIVELA u Hrvatskoj, nije nikada ni bila tamo!!!

Ona je americka-bosanska glumica ali je hrvatica po etnicitetu. Razumijes li? Hahahihihoho 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Zao mi je ali ona sama za sebe kaze da je Hrvatica prema tome moze biti samo Americka glumica hrvatskog porijekla ili americko-hrvatska glumica. Bosanska nikad nije ni bila niti ce biti....sto je to uopce "bosanska glumica"? Ukratko postedi me... Afrika 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please, try to me a little more objective and read WP:POV,WP:CITE and WP:NOR? Thank you. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're the right person to call on other people's objectivity...especially not mine. Afrika 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
And why is that? Look at us - you've got me, who expresses his will to discuss and posts on the talk page - and on the other side is you, who refuses to discuss and refers to edit-warring and insulting in the manner of an internet troll (please see the article). I don't want to seem harsh, but I'm being objective. HolyRomanEmperor 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the will nor the desire to "discuss" anything with a nationalist troll and revisionist such as yourself. You and 'objectivness' in the same sentence is an oxymoron with you being the latter part of that term. Cheers. Afrika 03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That is where you are wrong, my fried - you don't have a choice. Your edits will be reverted until you wish to discuss them - and continuing to refuse democracy might only get you banned. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"My edits" are already discussed, if you actually cared about objectivity and referred to the talk page you would see that it was Pannonian who made the edit due to reached consensus. His version is most NPOV and objective. You keep pushing your nationalistic version and it is you who will get banned...for the second time. :-))) Afrika 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't banned - this account was (under my suspicion). I operated as User:HRE until I got it back and had it unblocked (safety measures). Go ahead and read the whole story. If you see Talk:Pagania, you'll noticed that your arguements have reached a deadend. Additionally, PANONIAN questioned your arguements and asked you further (that you woulod've known had you read the talk page). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I see that the account was banned thus your were banned. I don't care under what circumstance that ban came...just as you don't care why I had 3RRR block for three hours but you're ready to point it out...so there you have it. Also it seems that you need to look up better at Talk:Pagania and also Pannonian did asked me further but has in the end agreed to make a more neutral stance and made an excellent NPOV article...now you come back again pushing for NPOV nationalistic version. Sorry but no. Again it is you who needs to read the talk page not me. Afrika 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope - I continued under User:HRE. This forcing and misunderstanding has made me come to a conclusion that you were involved in the hiijacking of my old account. I am ready to point out an error that you made - however, you pointing out how I was terrorized and abused and then misinterpreting it won't do you any good. PANONIAN has suggested compromise - and then he himself asked you to prove arguements for the current version, which you failed to do - so the deal's "off" :). I read the talk page around 10 times by now and only can see your silence. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Your 'conclusion' is hillarious. Furthermore I have nothing to 'disscus' with you as you showed total lack of objectivity and neutrality. Afrika 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not your choice - you have to discuss, or your good faith will be highly questioned. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WARNING

Image:Stop_hand.svg

This is a warning. Continue to push an edit war and you might be blocked. Please, try to be more disscussive and less lenient on edit-warring. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I don't think you have the right or the ability to push wrnings...especially if one knows your past here on the forum. The article was settled until you came so it is in fact you who are pushing the flame and edit war. Afrika 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Settled? What are you talking about? I wrote that article from scrap to what it is until you barged in. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You are totally derranged.... Afrika 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

Image:Stop_hand.svg
You have made a personal attack. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Just a reminder - because people get banned for that. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Calling you derranged? You call that a personal attack? What about calling someone "internet troll" without provocation like you did? Please do not make me laugh... And stop playing like you are some kind of moderator...your "warnings" are laughable. :-))) Afrika 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. You can disagree with someone as strongly as you want, but do not insult them. Okay? DS 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look a bit further up you will see that he insulted me far worse. Strange how you didn't notice that. Afrika 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the entire situation yet.
Incidentally, changing an article to a version that you don't agree with... that is not vandalism. Vandalism would be, for example, changing every tenth word into "penis", or adding a picture of dogs having sex - something silly and stupid and deliberately useless. Simply because you don't agree with what was done, that does not make it vandalism.
I'm going to read through what was said now. DS 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. He said that you were behaving like a Troll. And, in fact, now that I've read your statements... I am forced to agree. I'm willing to believe that you did not mean this. However, you need to modify your behavior. Do you understand? DS 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't care wheter you agree with him or not(although it was clear you are here to support this troll from the first moment you appeared here) nor you or anyone have validity to tell me I "need to modify my behaviou". My behaviour is quite in order and unlike the person you defend I do not go around Wikipedia and change articles so it would suit my own nationalistic agenda....the only agenda I have is neutrality and objectivity. Afrika 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The worst thing about yourself is to claim neutrality and objectivity. I don't say that I am neutral. No one is neutral... nor objective (at least the way they should be). Except bots, ofcourse :D. Anyway, if you wish to head for neutrality and objectivity so fiercly, why don't you come and talk. Don't get me wrong, but starting a discussion and then abandoning it but continuing to push a version of an article is mostly self-evident as "oh no, I am wrong! well, anyway, I'll try to push it still" - a desperate user. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The worst thing I could is to run across Wikipedia changing what it doesn't suit me to my political views like you are doing. And I did have come and talked. While you were banned the discussion was concluded and consensus was reached. Afrika 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIC that is what you seem to be doing. And I repeat again, even though I've told you a thousand times this before and you mysteriously overheard, I wasn't banned, but my account hijacked and blocked under my behalf and I worked temporarely under User:HRE. Careful inspection of Talk:Pagania, though, clearly shows how you evaded discussion and resorted to edit-warring. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

6 million?

Any proofs? References? --Ante Perkovic 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

6 million what? Afrika 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
6 million Croats. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If he(and you as well) is interested he should count the numbers on the very page. Afrika 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please, read WP:CITE and WP:NOR. You have to support your arguements, or they are to be dismissed without discussion. Additionally, please read WP:V and note removal - in that case, your edits shall be reverted without second thoughts. Please stop pushing versions at Pagania, Zahumlje, Duklja and Travunia and start bringing sane arguements to the corresponding talk pages. Thank you. I look forward to (this time good) cooperation/collaboration regarding those articles. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pagania

I have been asked to express my opinion on this dispute. I admit I am not familiar with the subject but I could not fail to notice some issues. As far as I see this, you are disputing the article version reworked by him but have failed so far to provide any sources to back up your actual claim (i.e. some historians consider them as possibly Croats or non-Serbs). Another point to consider is whether giving both positions the same importance would result on undue weight. Basically, what I mean is that whichever the more accepted view is, it would have to be clearly identified as such. Regards, Asteriontalk 21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have provided sources and I have also asked him to answer and clear some issues...he did not do that. Also consensus on all the articles(Pagania, Duklja, Zahumlje, Travunja) has been reached and in the spirit of NPOV policy of wikipedia...now he returns after his ban and pushes for some fantasy version of his own. If you observe the NPOV versions have all been written and promoted by other people not me....I am just here not allowing him to revert it back to his nationalistic version. Afrika 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
AFAIC - I have just skimmed Talk:Pagania, and could find no arguement presented in your edits. As can be seen, I cleared out and answered all of the issues that you have presented me. There was no consensus on the Duklja article. Other "consensuses" were brought mainly through "giving in" to all that Wikipedia opposes - intetnet trolling, vandalism and Original Research - and I can't let that happen. Define "nationalistic version". All I care is sourcefullness/accuracy. Now that this is the 7th time that you mention that I was banned - even though I was not, but was a victim of such actions like in the manner of yours (it was a hijack). I can this only interpret as an intentional provocation from you. - either you intentionally plan on frustrating me, or even worse, you don't read a thing I say. Either way, this will not seem nice on your carreer here - so please, stop that. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered all and you keep avoiding giving the answers. I really don't care what you think...you have lost all credibility long time ago with me. Afrika 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just reskimmed Talk:Pagania and could see no posts made by you. It is thus you who keeps avoiding discussion/answering. The fact that you don't care what I think also speaks a lot from your side and neglecting of the fact that Wikipedia is free, so you cannot undermine my opinion. Instead of commenting the User, comment the content of articles (as Wikipedia's policies state) - I have - you haven't. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consider getting better glassess? And it is interesting that you speak how I 'undermine' your opinion when it is you who is doing that exact thing...and not just my opinkon but Pannonian and of other people as well. Instead of a compromise and NPOV version you keep pushing for some fantasy version of your own...well be sure that my patience is great and I will be persistant until you realize you cannot force unfounded and ridiculous nationalistic claims. Regards. Afrika 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:PANONIAN asked you to prove your claims - and you ignored that. I still overlooked the page and could no claim/arguement/source to support your version. Could you give one? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Pannonian changed it himself...I didn't forced him to which means he as well doubted the version you are pushing for and if you had any objectivity and knowledge of historical facts you wouldn't either. Afrika 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did force PANONIAN through edit-warring of our articles and resorting to personal attacks against him. After PANONIAN was forced by you to an uneasy compromise he invited you to give statements/sources - which you didn't - and I waited for some time, but your silence made me revert back as I saw you were arguementless. I very much doubt that he doubted an article that me and him were writing from scrap. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 10:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how I am able to force anyone to anything. You are ranting. What he did was his will alone and unlike you he at least has some decency(at least it seemed at the end) and more objectivity then you'll ever. Afrika 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're easily able to force, by the way of vandalising, or reverting the articles that they edit. I'm not ranting - let's ask User:PANONIAN. It wasn't his will alone, but your will, rather (as he later asked you to source your claims and you remained silent). I am objective - but I need to see arguements. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on my side but on your side. It is not me claiming Neretvians or Docleans as Croats but it is you who claims they were Serbs and nothing else...that is wrong. If you notice the articles I want to preserve have neutral stance and every single person can come to their own conclusio according to info present in the articles. And I repeat I did not 'force' anyone to anything...least Panonian. Afrika 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I give you my hat - but I don't claim that they were nothing else. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No you claim they were Serbs when such claim is highly and easily disputable and cannot be confirmed. Afrika 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It is confirmed - it isn't that highly and easily disputable. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not confirmed. Find me one other source which undoubtably confirms this? Also show me a credible explanation why 'your source' contraditcs itself? It is indeed highly and easily disputable and refutable Afrika 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP

You know, ignoring of friendly advises and/or "peace treaties", to call 'em; and silently continue your edit wat, it will only backfire on you. Consider this a friendly warning as well. This way won't get you anywhere - and you'll only damage me (who is intent on defending his creations from destruction), you and the globality appeal of Wikipedia, this free Encyclopedia. Please don't break everything that it stands for. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am done "disscussing" with you. You have proven to be thickheaded and stuborn extremist. Please stop vandalising the mentioned article and please remove yourself from my talk page. Thank you. Afrika 02:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually - please understand what is classified as Vandalism. You appearently didn't read (or read and forgot) the last time I pointed you out to that rule - but here's the link again - Wikipedia:Vandalism. According to it, plain unexplained removal is considered vandalism - which you have been doind - which is to be reverted as soon as possible. Tell me, why is my editing classified as vandalism? It's merely a content dispute (please differ that from vandalism - its very different). Actually, one must look who is extremist - extremists often resort to violence, ignorring the peace talks (which you have been doing). You have also expressed stubborness by defending your personal aims no matter what - and at all costs of jeoperdizing this encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say it is quite ridiculous that you accuse me of things that you do. As I said you exhibit total lack of neutrality and objectivity. Pushing for your own nationalistic and unfounded/unsourced version of the history will not be tolerated. Afrika 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
AFAIC, let me make a comparation. You come and claim that Putin is white, however; I attack you, insult you and barge claiming that any claims of Putin's caucasianess is highly nationalistic and can't be tolerated (claiming that he's black), but without any sort of arguement whatsoever, sources, evidence, discussion or even mild claims. That's what you have been doing. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL. This is simply ridiculous. :-))) Afrika 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You might consider it ridiculous and this project a thjing to play with - to me, it is an important thing. --212.200.83.94 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I fiund your comments ridiculous and this is important to me as well...thats why I will not allow you to 'change' history as you see fit. Afrika 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Which comments of mine did you find ridiculous? And, you are not authoried to put the article under your personal martial control. I don't "change" hisory as I see fit - if you notice the history of those articles, you will see that I wrote them entirely - so it is you who is changing them. For every piece I used sources and valuable statements - unlike you - so it is you whos is changing it as you see fit. Don't get me wrong, but you have misunderstood Wikipedia entirely. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Your comments here are increasingly ridiculous...hillarious even. You have even gone so far to accuse me of hacking your account?!?! LOL! And yes you do "change" history as you see fit...Neretvians, Zahumljans, etc were not Serbs as you claim and as you try to enforce. You intnetionally disregard sources and take the ones which suit you...I don't see a reason why DAI would have the advatage of LPD for example. Furtherore you have failed to explain the contradictions of the source you claim to have the advantage and also to provide additional source or more correctly to explain the lack of your claims in many other numerous and far more prescise Arabian and Venetian chroncicles. Afrika 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing might seem ridiculous to you, but what we're making here is editing an Encyclopedia. I am not accusing you of anything - I am just pointing out what you're throwing at my face. How do you know that they were not Serbs? Which sources are those? DAI is much more credible that LPD, as fully explained at Talk:Pagania. Which contradictions are those? What did I fail to provide? What Arabian & Venetian chronicles? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but claiming that DAI is more 'credible' than LPD is just ridiculous. LPD is basically the transliteration of text from first hand...chronicles of people who lived there while DAI is chroincle of the hearsay of the future emperor who NEVER VISITED these areas and was writting down legends, hearsay and rumors. You still haven't answered me - if they were Serbs as you claim how come NONE of the Venetian sources mention them as such...we only have Croats and general 'Slavic' in their charters, chronicles, etc.? Can you explain that? Afrika 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Look:For example: LPD was discovered in the 16th century - there are no traces of its existence before (which cannot apply to the always-there DAI). The LPD was written in 1171-1189 by the Serbian Archbishop of Antivari Gregory and speaks of everything that happened in our lands from the beginning to its date. However, for the oldest of history, it sources a mysterioys "De Regno Sclavorum" (which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the world) from the year of 753 (!). Additionally, it is the Chronicle that is based mainly on the oral tellings of man-to-man that lived in Doclea, or even more stricly limited to the citizens of Antivari. On the other hand, DAI has been composed by a Roman Emperor (!), who took it mainly from various texts from the Imperial library as well as the tellings of his most trusted strategists, advisors and historians, which was written around 950 (so its closer to the years it tells about). LPD doesn't exist in its original form, but after at least 10 overwritings - whereas DAI is kept as an original. LPD was written (thus) in a poetic manner, fulling the romantic nationalism of the people (where lived 200 years after their sons) - as one of its soal goals was to be a propaganda pamphlet; it was written in the Serbian dialect of the Old Slavonic language and then translated to "pig latin"; the oldest known version of LPD (and there were tens of it) is that of a Croat linguist from the 16th century - and it bears no mention of Red Croatia, nor Croats in the southern Dalmatian Principalities at all. The latter Latin version is the only one that mentions Red Croatia (and as such its modern Serbo-Croat translation). On the other hand, DAI has been written in a masterful (Old) Neo-Greek language and it's written encyclopedicly; its sole existence is the Emperor's desires to educate his son. Whereas LPD never reached international recognition, DAI did and was the center of research of the Western Monarchies that modelled themselves with Roman infrastructure. LPD concetrates on only that thing - but DAI is a lot more wider (only its small bit deals with the history of Croats & Serbs), whereas the rest deals with how to wage wars, the Orthodox Church, planned construction, politics & war and generally, as its name states, how to rule an Empire.
We have neither "Croats" nor "Slavs" in any Venetian source that mentions them that way. We have simply "Marians" or the "Narentines" (hardly Slavic - as some Venetian sources even tended to openly consider them Illyrians). That is, if we disregard the modern Italian/Venetian sources from the Age of Nationalism that generally considered the Dalmatian population Serbian. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, now read my previous comment. And also the modern Italian/Venetian sources did not considered Dalmatian population Serbian...that is greatly incorrect...and even if they did it has nothing to do with what happened 1000 years ago and even less to modern history since we know that Dalmatian population identified and identifies with Croatian...Neretvian descendants included. As for the matters about LPD and DAI I already said what I had to say....if someone would answer me these: Why does the DAI contradicts itself? Why does it goes against numerous other Byzanatine sources? Why doesn't any Venetian or Saracen/Arab chronicle or source from that time confirms what is written there? And most interesting question of them all - why do the Serbs discard LPD so quickly when there is a discussion about 'Croatia Rubea' but are quick to call upon it when there is a discussion about the supposed 'Serbian Bosnia'? Interesting. No? And you said it yourself most of DAI does not concerns Slavic populations...it's main theme are other matters concerning the empire. The things written about Slavic populations(Croats, Serbs, etc...) is something Porphyrogenitus didn't know much and was thus calling himself upon various legends, rumors, 2nd, 3rd, etc. stories. Afrika 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes they did; search for Serbo-Illyirans. Ofcourse it has nothing to do. Neretvian descendents included? On what do you base that? My tutors tought me errourosly how the Narentines are simply Croats, simply because their descendents are (allegedly) Croats. The population of medieval Herzegovina was almost exclusivly Orthodox Serb. The majority of the old Zachlumians live now either in Vojvodina or in Timocka Krajina, or God knows (we can't trace 'em everywhere! :) DAI doesn't contradic itself. It doesn't go against a single Byzantine source. Because there were very little Venetian and Arab/Saracen (as I said some Venetian chronicles don't even consider Pagans Slavs - but Illyrians rather)... God knows - I can't answer that question, no one can. Why do Serbs do what because what? I'm sorry, what are you talking about? I don't belong there. Ironicly, Croats discard as fast when Serbian Bosnia is mentioned - but quickly call it upon when they dispute the southern Dalmatian Principalities :) - that's why I don't refer to LPD as a source (regarding those arguable parts). Not upon various legends, rumors, stories; but like I said - the Imperial library, Imperial advisors, historians and strategists. LPD on the other hand is based almost exclusivly on oral stories & legends. For instance, did you know one of LPD's most interesting legends - the construction of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). It claims that Belo, the grandson of the Serb "King" Ceslav is the one who built Ragusa in the 9th/10th century from scrap, connecting it with a wonderful love story (oh and right - LPD claims that Serbs had built Dubrovnik, by the way :) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Serbo-Illyrians? What is that? I hear this for the first time. I even tried Google it...nothing solid comes up...only articles related to Illyrian movement and other similar articles. And DAI does contradicts itself...you have still not answered my question why does Porphyrogenitus at one points writes that they are Serbs but in other instance he mentions Serbs and Paganians separately...with others such as Croats, Zaclumians, Docleans, etc...if they were Serbs as you claim why did he listed them separately? Also what of numerous other Byzantine sources that speak of Docleans and Zachlumians as Croats? And the main point is that Venetians who dealed with Neretvians more than anyne else never referred to them as Serbs...ever. All you base your claim is one highly doubtful and not very credible source. LPD is not very credible either....the whole point I am making is that there must be some neutrality towards these medieval principalities...they were neither Serbian nor Croatian and that is my whole point. Sure later they did acquire Croatian and Serbian character and identity but that was much later when most of these principalities were fused into Croatia or Serbia anyway. Show some good will and common sense man. Afrika 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That is just irridentist Italian (supported by Serbian) POV on the non-national Roman Catholic Christian population of Dalmatia based on the Serbian-nationalistic minority. I did respond - he does not seperate them in other stories, but in the same paragraph. Additionally, that can't refer to all Serbs, but just Pagans - accuracy. Just as one would say "Rascian" or "Doclean" or "Bosnian" instead of "Serb" for accuracy. DAI doesn't contradict itself. They are listed as per Serb state; Empress Anna, John Skylitzes, Kekauman (next to Porphyrogenitos), Constantine the Philosopher and numerious others; so what if they didn't? maybe they didn't know? Maybe they didn't want to generalize? There was often usage of "Dalmatian", but we all know that it meant "Croat". As a part of the international cultural historical bastion - its not doubtful and/or uncredible at all (at least not that much). LPD is far less credible - as its purpose is more to entertain, and not teach. I would like neutrality too - but I can't reach it with that kind of attitude of yours. Nonsence - they were either Serb-like or Croat-like (much lesser possibility the latter); their indiginousness is even more unsourced than the both; the southern Dalmatian principalities were always fused into a unfied Serbian state, except for some exceptions (Croat/Bulgarian/Byzantine occupations) until the loss of the western half to Bosnia in the 14th century (800 years after) and the final fall of Serbia in the 15th/16th centuries. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but that is just ridiculous 'explenation'. Why would he in one paragraph write that they are Serbs and then in another he seprates them explicitly? Perhaps maybe because he doesn't know what he is talking about? Again DAI is just not credible enough to be considered a valid source...especially as I say it contradicts itself...other numerous sources contradict it as well including other Byzantine sources and Arab and Venetian sources which mention ne affiliation of Neretvians with Serbian identity. And no they were not always fused with Serbian state. Pagania especially. The only other valid alternative for a Serb would indeed be Rascian even though that may have designated a man from Rascia of any ethnic origin...same for Dalmatia(and Croatian medieval state within it). But to claim the same for Doclean or Bosnian is just absurd and goes along the lines of Serbian megalomania and revisonism. Rather strange for someone who claims to be apolitical to spread such propaganda around like yourself. Afrika 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika, please stop. you are on a wrong path.

Regarding Ivana Milicevic article, please explain why is "Croatian actress" better than "Bosnian actress od Croatian descent". Croatian actress is ambiguous because it may relate to Croatia while Bosnian actress od Croatian descent precisely explains who she is. So, I really don't understand what are you trying to prove here. This issue is quite simple and I'm beginning to think that your only motive is to provoke other people (notably - Serbs and Bosniaks). I hope that isn't the case. Please, explain why do you think that your version is better then mine. --Ante Perkovic 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a source saying(where she states actually) she is Croatian. Please refer to sources.Afrika 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article states she is croatian. Now, if you click on the link croatian, you will se that it has several meanings. One of them is related to "croatian people". She never even lived in Croatia! --Ante Perkovic 00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter wheter she lived or not in Croatia, she is Croatian. Period. Afrika 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But she is also Bosnian. Isn't she? You deleted that. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
'Bosnian' in the mentioned article is only territorial designation which is already given in her birthplace and further in the article. By ethnicity she is Croatian and she declares as such and the sources confirm it. Afrika 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But the intentional removal of "Bosnian" can only be understood as generally against Bosnians (with the exception of Croats, perhaps). That's how your edits are being seen here. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It can be understood as whatever you wish. The source however is undisputable. If there were some other source which says she is 'Bosnian'(whatever that might be) then you could make an argument. Afrika 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute veryfiability - I argue what made you make such a case, except disrespect towards the Bosnians. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no disrespect whatsoever to anyone from my side. Afrika 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why are you a fierce opposer of "Bosnian" (or Serbian in the southern Dalmatian principalities)? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not "fierce opposer" neither of Bosnian nor Serbian. We have a explicit source where it is said she is Croatian. That she is born in Bosnia-Herzegovina is up there as well. Don't see what is the problem. As for medieval princpalities in southern Dalmatia it is absurd and ridiculous to call them Serbian...or for that matter Croatian. Afrika 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why do you oppose to mention that she's Bosnian in the preface. "Croatian" is also misleading - connects her to Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how can it be 'misleading'. She is Croatian as her both parents are Croatian and as she sees herself as such. She can't be anything else. Afrika 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Croatian and bosnian

If you click on the bosnian, you will se that you can say that she is also a "bosnian" as much as "croatian" since those adjectives have several meanings (as all ethnic/national adjectives). So, your insisting on declaring her solely "croatian" and not "bosnian" looks like very clear case of WP:POINT.

Now, I must admit that I really hate stubborn users pushing their own POV here. I had clashes with few tens of POV-pushers here and they were mostly Serbs. I was really proud to see that great majority of Croats here are very nice and tolerant people, unlike wiki-Serbs, among whom, as you will propably agree, there are many radicals and vandals. If You were a Serb, I might even let you go with ewhat you do, because 15 or 16 vandal doesn't make much difference. But, since you are obviously a Croat, your vandalism really ruines out stats here on wiki.

So, if you keep disrputing wiki the way you do, I'll alert every possible admin here.

--Ante Perkovic 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact she is Bosnian(territorial designation) can be observed from her birhtpalce, ethnically she is Croatian and is considered as such. And what is most important we have a valid source(s) which supports that notion. I've already discussed this prior and I've made out the points...now if you would refer to talk page you would see them. And please do not threaten me...it means so little to me. Regards.Afrika 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no - the point is that you were removing a part of info - "Bosnian" - and you need to explain why is that irrelevant. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
How did I removed part of the info if her birthplace 'Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina' is still up there?! LOL! Afrika 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't - you removed the fact that she's Bosnian. What's wrong with stating that in the intro? It doesn't replace her being of Croat descent. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
She is not Bosnian...she is Croatian. Afrika 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
She is not Bosnian - but that's the problem, she is Bosnian. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
She is Croatian. Afrika 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
...and what makes her not Bosnian? Additionally, "Croatian" is a little misleading - "Bosnian Croat" is better. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
What is Bosnian? Does it denotes nationality? No it does not. It only designates where she is born. Will Predrag Stojakovic(baskteball player - for example) be a Croat because he was born in Croatia? Or a Croatian basketball player? Of coure not. Afrika 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed...

...how you talked how you care only about neutrality and objectivity. You also kept constantly removing DAI wikiquotes (which is vandalism, by the way), under the excuse of them being repetitions. However, I checked which you kept removing and which you didn't. You removed from the articles Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia; however, not from Doclea. And I compared the differences - DAI proves that Serbs inhabited Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia - but mentions no Serbs in Doclea, just ordinarily Slavs... This tells a lot about you - you only wanted to remove the mentions of Serbs anywhere, appearently. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed the DAI referances which says explicitly what is in those quotes as well. Perhaps you should read more carefully. Afrika 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia - you have removed all wikiquotes from there. All wikiquotes quote them as being Serbs. Doclea - you didn't remove the wikiquote from there. It doesn't mention them as being Serbs. Is that a coincidencial error from your side? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
See my previous comment. Afrika 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A kingdom in the Balkan Peninsula, on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea; the territory was in ancient times a portion of the Roman province of Dalmatia. Emperor Diocletian made Southern Dalmatia a separate province, Praevalis (Dioclea, Dioclitia) with Dioclea as its capital. From the seventh century the north-western portion of the peninsula began to be invaded by Slav tribes; one of these, the Serbs, settled in the territory which they still possess, and founded there several principalities (Zupanate), the most southern of which was called Zeta, or (after the ancient Dioclea) Duklja. From Zeta sprang the Nemanjiden family, under whose autocracy the Servian Empire attained its greatest power. Stefan I Nemanja was recognized as Chief Zupan by Emperor Manuel I, in 1165; having reduced into submission the stubborn lesser Zupans, he embraced the Orthodox Faith, and then began to organize the Servian Church. His youngest son, Sawa, or Sabas, after being appointed first Orthodox Archbishop of Servia in 1221, founded a see for Zeta in the monastery of St. Michael near Cattaro. In the Empire of the Serbs, each heir apparent to the throne was first appointed administrator of the Province of Zeta. However, under King Stefan Dusan (1331-55) a member of the Balscicz family was named Governor of Zeta. From 1360 to 1421 this family ruled in Zeta, notwithstanding the constant opposition of the Cernojevic family, settled in Upper Zeta. On the destruction of the Great Servian Empire by the Turks after the battle of Amsfeld in 1389 Zeta became the refuge of the most valiant of the Serbs, who refused to submit to the Turkish yoke.

On Montenegro, from the Catholic Encyclopedia. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources? On what do they base these claims? Do you really consider 'Catholic Encyclopedia' to be valid source? Afrika 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
How should I know? Anyway, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a wide-known encyclopedia - and as such deserves at little a little drop of respect from you. It may base it on DAI - it may not; let's go to Vatican and find out. According to the Wikipedia policy, we should look what other encyclopedias say and arrange edits in accordance to them. It might also seem interesting to you that Encyclopedia Britanica and the Brockhaus Encyclopedia both support the Catholic Encyclopedia's claims. It's a source. Additionally, if you're going to dispute "on what do they base these claims", we might as well dispute on what Ferdo Sisic bases the Pagans' Chakavian dialect (if he does state that). Additionally, Encyclopedia Britanica states that the father of Roger Joseph Boshcovich is a Croat - despite him being of Serbian/Bosnian origins, and a convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism - however, it is thus proper that we style him as Croat - just as it is proper that we style Dado Prso as a Serb. Get it? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A 'little drop of respect' is all what they will get from me anyway. After some things I've read there I don't have good opinion about this encyclopedia. As for Boskovic's father there is not one source which mentions him as Serb...he is either referred as Croatian, Dalmatian and at one instance 'an Orthodox Slav'. Don't see what does that have to do with anything. Afrika 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem - after you've read some parts of DAI, you don't have a good opinion; after you've read this - you don't have a good opinion on it. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica
Actually my opinion on both DAI and Britannica I've expressed here also are much older than this discussion with you. Afrika 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
History.The history of Montenegro as an independent state begins with the battle of Kossovo (1389), but the country had enjoyed periods of independence or semi-independence at various epochs before that event. It formed a portion of the district of Praevalitana in the Roman province of Illyria, and, lying on the borderland of the empires of the West and East, it alternately shared the fortunes of either till the close of the 5th century. It was then conquered by the Ostrogoths (A.D. 493), but half a century later definitely passed under Byzantine rule, having already acknowledged the ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople, a circumstance which determined the course of its subsequent history. Illyria and Dalmatia succumbed to the great Serbo-Croat Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th centuries; the Serb race by which Montenegro is now inhabited occupied the country about the middle of the 7th century. A confederacy of Serb states was formed under thu pans, or feudal princes, dependent on the grand zhupan, who was nominally the vassal of the Greek emperor. The Serb principality of the Zeta, or Zenta, originally included the Herzegovina, Cattaro and Scutari, as well as the Montenegro of to-day, and was ruled by a zhupan resident at Doclea.
Are you going to like it after you read this? How will you act if I show you the German Brockhaus Encyclopedia? Can you see that you're giving me the picture that you just don't like them because of what they say. Historicly, if you see good ol' Encyclopedia Britannica article on Serbian culture: After Gyorgyich the Servian literature of Ragusa and Dalmatia during the 18th century has no great name to show, except that of the mathematician, Ruggiero Boshkovich (see Boscovicu). His two brothers and his sister Anitsa Boshkovich were known in their time as poets. But on the whole Servian literature on the Adriatic coast showed little originality in the 18th century; its writers were content to produce good translations of Latin, Italian and French works. However, his father is a subject of the Catholic Schism (conversion of Orthodoxes to Catholics); for his full origin see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are other sources, such as Luko Zore, a Dubrovnik Catholic historian that wrote the book "Dubrovcani su Srbi" in the early 20th century. Aside from this, there are other sources (mostly Italian and Serbian). However, this is not what most Encyclopediae say - so it is unacceptable - just as that which you claim. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually both the Britannica and the German encyclopdia which is more-less transliteration and Gerrman version of the British one. Britannica when founded has some outdated and old data still present as they are not prone to change...it must be said here that this encyclopedia was just like the official British policy under the influence of the Serbian ally during the begining of the 20th century and Serbia excerted this advantage over Croatia which was part of Habsburg Monarchy and had no say...it was the enemy anyway. You will not find one neutral source which will claim Dubrovnik Serbian...in fact there are books from Italy in the begining of the 1th century showing Ragusan ships bearing Croatian coat of army....no encyclopedia can beat that. As for the few of the few in Dubrovnik who claimed such things they were really a minor element there. You see at the begining of the century it was the official policy and opinion of linguists and especially historians in Yugoslavia that chakavian was "true Croatian" and that shtokavian dialects are solely Serbian. This ridiculous and preposterous claim was soon after abandoned and we know today that it was not, it is not and cannot be true. Afrika 09:44, 21 September 2006
Actually, Brockhaus is a lot more against the Serbs, as it keeps talking of Greater Serbia and puts the blame of the 1990s misfortunes at the Serb side (mostly, still refering to neo-fascism in Croatia and Kosovo and religious zeal in Bosnia and Kosovo), unlike Britannica which remains NPOV. Anyway, what are you trying to say? That no encyclopedia is OK? That all those encyclopediae are unreliable? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That is not 'against the Serbs' that IS NPOV. Are you going to claim 'Greater Serbia' claims are a myth? For gods sake the strongest party in Serbia still claims they will get the so-called 'historical Serbian lands' which it must be said were NEVER Serbian. As for the 1990s events we all know who started and who is to blame. I would claim that none of the encyclopedia has everything right...but Britannica mostly....referring to the South Slavic area which is of my immediate interest. Afrika 00:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[7] made on September 20, 2006 to Pagania

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You have blocked me for being full 3RR rule breaking on Pagania article? Could you specify, when was that?! I am looking here at times when I edited the article and can't seem to find where did I break this rule? Also the user User:HolyRomanEmperor did 5(!!) reverts on 19th September (yesterday) and he is not blocked!?! WTF?! Afrika 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see 4 clear reverts in 24h in the history list William M. Connolley 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What is 24h to you? Does it means literally or 24h as in not editing the article more than 3 times in one day - say 3 times in 19th September? Because truth to be said I thought that the rule is perceieved as in the latter case? Also may I ask you do you see that HolyRomanEmperor broke the rule as well? I don't see you blocking him as well. Whats up with that? Afrika 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Its the number in 24h, as the rule clearly states William M. Connolley 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: HRE: no: contiguous edits count as one. Again, read the rules. If you're going to skirt 3RR, read the rules. Better still, try WP:1RR and be safe William M. Connolley 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Only three of his edits are contigous and could be considered one. The other two hardly. That is still 3RR. Now if you are going to block me you must block him as well. Please do your job fairly. Afrika 00:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No - I'm not going to get blocked because I didn't violate the 3RR rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually you did break the 3RR rule and it can be seen still on Pagania history page. Unlike you however I will not report you because I find this to be cowardly act. Afrika 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You have a rather weird sence of honour. Wikipedia is not a battlefield - but an encyclopedia. I didn't break the 3RR rule - thus, you cannot report me, even if you would. There is nothing cowerdise in obeying Wikipedia's rules!. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You did break the rule and if you persist in claims you didn't I will report you. I do not respon well to lies and arrogance. Be sure of that. Also for someone who claims wikipedia is not a 'battlefield' you have a rather agressive stance. Afrika 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Name & other

You might notice that the link leads to an empty page. Your real user page is Afrika paprika, not Afrika Paprika; if you dislike the name, you could change it at Wikipedia:Changing usernames.

P. S. I hope that you'll return to the discussion - you abandoned it but I don't see you off; you're discussing with your blocking administrator. --HolyRomanEmperor 07:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All replies

(from Pagania) It doesn't contradict itself. It isn't so easily disputable and arguably as you claim.

(from Please STOP). what do you mean in another paragraph?

At the paragraph about Serbs, the Emperor says: And because present Serbia and Pagania and the land of the Zachlumoi and Travunia and the land of the Canalites were under the authority of the Emperor of the Romeii, and those lands were deserted by Avars, the Emperor inhabited in these lands the same Serbs and they were subject to the Emperor of the Romeii, the emperor baptised them bringing priests from Rome and, teaching them to correctly commit the acts of divinity, gave them the Christian though.

And then the paragraph on the Pagans says: The land which is populated by the Pagans now was also held by the Romans [...] Those same Pagans descend from the unbaptised Serbs from the times of the archont that refuged to Emperor Heraclius [..] Pagans are called because they weren't batpised in the time all Serbs were... etc.

Where does it contradict itself? What contradicts with it? Megalomania? Look, I just cite sources/quotations. If you continue claiming that - we'll reah nowhere. The Serbian national unification/birth of a unified state/awakening was achieved in 1166, when all southern Dalmatian principalities became a component of that state. The majority of the Serbian population lived along the coastline - while the hinterland (Bosnia and Rascia) were pretty much deserted. This just prooves that you didn't read what I already pointed out to you several times.

It's highly nationalistic pro-Croat to claim she's Croatian and nothing else. The concept of one being something is a lot wider. "Bosnian" means citizen of Bosnia or Bosnian-born. Additionally, it is a nationality. Predrag Stojakovic isn't a Croat because he is an adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church; he is a declared Serb (not Croat). He isn't Croat because he was forced to flee Croatia because he was a non-Croat (or at least he was considered by those who opposed his people). He isn't a Croatian basketball player because he didn't/doesn't play in a Croatian basketball national team. He however is most definately Croatian (or better Yugoslav), and there is nothing he can do to change the place of his birth. Croatian is misleading because it connects Ivana to Croatia - but it should connect to Bosnia.

What are you talking about? Well then, if you approve Brockhaus' statement that Croats inhabited north of Cetina and Serbs south - then where's the arguement? I just said that it talks more bad about the Serbs than other encyclopedias (so it can't be pro-Serb); LaRousse encyclopedia for instance can't stop presenting the bad image of Croats, whereas Britannica's in the middle, but when it talks about Bosnia it tends to talk bad mostly about Serbs. Those are just some insignificant variations. Additionally, the "strongest party in Serbia" has no power in Serbia whatsoever; what do you mean by "must be said were NEVER Serbian" We don't all know who started and who is to blame. If you are refering to who started, then are you refering to the Republic of Slovenia? And when there's to talk who to blame - most are either in Hague or will be (is that what you though?) --HolyRomanEmperor 10:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I said it several times and I repeat it again (you constantly don't listen - why, I listen to everything you say?) I didn't break the 3RR rule. I never lie and tend not to be aggressive. Please, look at my contributions and see the tons of articles I wrote. And now see yours and point at ONE constructive edit. How can you compare me being abusive next to you? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We are done 'discussing'. I've tried to reason with you but you do not wish to listen. constantly repeating the same crap over and over again. Note that I will not allow perversion of historical facts. Pagania, Zahumlje Duklja and Pagania were not "serbian lands" and I will not allow any revisionism of these historical facts. Now if you wish to complain to someone please do, but spare me already of your rants. I am done with you... Afrika 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am rather dissappointed that you "surrender" - we're not fightig, we're just debating the contents of an article - which is in the spirit of Wikipedia's being - so I encourage you to continue. If you don't have the strength to continue but have the strength to push your version that goes against Wikipedia's policy - well, that's selfcontradicting. I hope that you either continue the arguement or abandon your claims (but I hope more for the first). --HolyRomanEmperor 19:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- ChrisO 09:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the content of Operation Storm could you please explain what you think is wrong with it? It isn't very helpful to just say "this article is full with propaganda and fallacies" and then not say what those "propaganda and fallacies" are. The accuracy dispute tag will be removed if you can't substantiate your claim. -- ChrisO 08:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
1. There is no source which confirms the claims it caused an "ethnic cleansing". The link it refers to does not states no such thing. 2. There is no such thing as "Krajina region" nor has there ever been...this is a construct from Serbian radicals and extremists. Taking into account only these two totally wrong and POV claims which are present all over the article makes the whole article to fail totally on accuracy. Afrika Paprika 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting - you yourself were a promoter of "Croatian Krajina" instead of the original "Military Frontier". The usage ofthe term "Krajina" is about 500 years years old, connoting the territories of Croatia that were mainly inhabited by ethnic Serbs up until 1995. The Military Krajina existed all the way until the late 19th century, and even if you admit the name - what, are you a Serbian radical and extremist? As for ethnic cleansing - well, the UN said that 250,000 Krajina Serbs fled either in fear, were exiled forcibly during, shortly before and shortly after Operation Storm. They also said that "Almost the only people remaining were the dead and the dying.". "Croats Burn and Kill with a Vengeance," Robert Fisk, The

Independent, 4 September 1995. "Croats Leave Bloody Trail of Serbian Dead," Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times, 9n October 1995. "Reports Say Croatia Uses Killing, Arson," John Pomfret, Washington Post, 30 September 1995. "UN Asks for Inquiry into Krajina Killings," Reuters, 18 August 1995. "EU Observers Accuse Croatia of Breaches of Law," op. cit. "UN Finds Evidence of Mass Killings in Croatia," Reuters, 2 October 1995. "Croats Slaughter Elderly by the Dozen," Robert Fisk, op. cit. "EU Report Accuses Croatia of Atrocities Against Rebel Serbs," Julian Borger, op.cit. "UN: Executions, Possible Mass Graves in Krajina," Agence France-Presse, 18 August 1995. "Helsinki Committee Chronicles Human Rights Abuses," op cit. "Evidence Emerging of Crimes Against Krajina Serbs," Tanjug, 30 August 1995. "Croats Accused of Atrocities," Associated Press, 29 September 1995" are just some of many sources. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The term Croatian Frontier(Hrvatska Krajina) which was component of Military Frontier(Vojna Krajina) is totally unrelated to this matter. 'Krajina' on it's own doesn't mean one thing besides simply meaning 'region', 'shire', 'county', etc. The usage of 'krajina' is as old as the language. The Military Frontier(Croatian and Slavonian parts) were in fact in majority inhabitated with Croats not Serbs and to claim otherwise is ridiculous. Associationg Military Frontier(Vojna Krajina) with the supposed 'Republic of Serbian Krajna' is in fact extremism and nationalism and has nothing to do with history. You have now revealed yourself completely. The teritories which Serbs inhabited were called Croatia and Slavonia(as part of Croatia). Even when Military Froniter was instituted it was considered Croatian and was referred as 'Military Croatia' as well. I think you should refer to Military Frontier pages and also the so-called 'Republic of Serbian Krajina' and read it well. As for your referrence to the UN there is nothing proven. Citing personal views of individual journalists won't do you any good and is not an argument. I can also post you numerous articles in favour of 'Operation Storm' and that would take forever. The point is the war didn't started in 1995. It started in 1991 when more than 250 000 Croats and other non-Serbs were exiled and expelled and at least twice as much in neighbouring regions displaced, Croatian cities and villaged bombed on daily bases from occuppied teritory(1/3 almost of whole Croatia). The 'Operation Storm' enabled the people to come back to their homes and effectively ended the war both in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Afrika Paprika 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Image:Stop hand.svg Regarding this diff of yours. While there is no doubt that Serbia commemorates the killing, you also added "relativly modest" - which is both POV and incorrect in its context. Also, please stop Edit warring on Pagania, Doclea, Zachlumia and Travunia without discussion; your editing at Operation Storm is also considered an Edit War - and an act of vandalism. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Duklja, Pagania and Travunia. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Please note that the 3RR does not grant you a right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. You have already been blocked for edit warring in relation to these articles. The duration of the block is 48 hours in recognition of your resumption of edit warring. -- ChrisO 08:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguements

You said that claiming that there were more Serbs than Croats in Military Frontier is ridiculous. I present thee the 1790 Austrian population census of the Military Frontier:

  • Serbs (42.4%)
  • Croats (35.5%)
  • Romanians (9.7%)
  • Hungarians (7.5%)
  • Germans (4.8%)

AFAIC, take a look of the same population census of Slavonia (and that doesn't include the Slavonian Military Frontier, but does include Srijem):

  • Serbs (46.8%)
  • Croats (45.7%)
  • Hungarians (6.8%)

Besides, why are we arguing over that? It doesn't matter who held majority where. What matters is that whenever Croatian property is stolen or destroyed because they were Croats or whenever Serbs are torured or killed because they were Serbs, that's ethnic cleansing (and that did occur in Operation Storm(. Do you agree on this? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are confused. This data is for the WHOLE Military Frontier including Banatian(now in Vojvodina) Frontier which had absolute Serbian majority due to Serbian migrations there. As for civic Slavonia as you say it doesn't includes Slavonian Military Frontier which had absolute Croatian majority but it does includes Syrmia which in it's eastern parts had absolute majority by Serbs. This has continuity to this day where Eastern Syrmia is by majority Serbian(and is in Serbia-Vojvodina) while the western part was and is by majority Croatian(and is in Croatia). I urge you to read carefully what I wrote and this time try to read it with understanding. And btw. that data looks "fishy" to me....Slavonia not having a substantial percentage of Germans? Thats ridiculous....whole Osijek and sourrounding region was predominantly German. Afrika Paprika 19:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The Serbian Military Frontier (Banat) was made of only one district - the Croatian had 8 and Slavonian had 9 disctricts. I don't know if you think that the whole Military Frontier was almost uninhabited - and then thickly inhabited in the small strip of Banat. As for Slavonia - most of Srem was a part of the Slavonian Military Frontier - then also you must consider the territory inhabited wholly by ethnic Croats - and then a tiny Vukovar, Ilok and Sremska Mitrovica with a population that exceeds all Croats! Be realistic. And yes, Germans formed 0.6% of Slavonia's population. See the image:

Image:Militargrenze.jpg

First there was no "Serbian Military Frontier" and second it doesn't matter of how many districts it was made of. Look at how big is Netherlands yet it has more people than Croatia and Hungary combined(f.e.). Observe the map and you will see that the Banatian Frontier is almost of the size of whole Croatian Frontier and do have in mind that Banat and Syrmia were always far more populated as they are fertile plains while Lika and Dalmatian hinterland(most of Croatian Krajina) is poor mountainas backward region. Also most of the Serbs in Slavonia(Syria more correctly) lived not in the cities you mention but in the villages. For example the city of Zemun had 98% majority of Croats, Petrovaradin 92% but Croats were way from being a majority in Eastern Syrmia. Later when Serbs started moving into cities Croats quickly became minority...same with Hungarians, Germans and Croats. We had the similar example in Dalmatia where when Croats started moving into towns the Latin/Italian majority was quickly relegated to minority...a small one at that. And I must say 0.6% Germans only in Slavonia sounds wrong to me....the number most definately has to be higher. Afrika Paprika 22:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And now - OK, let's take an example. The largest (territorially) regiment of the Military Frontier was Lika. Lika's Serbian population according to the censi exceeded 70% in the 19th century (this is not only the RSK East Lika - but the whole region). Note, please; that the 19th century is presented by constant immigration of Serbs to Free Serbia - because their own free state has been created. Now - if you really want, let's go to figures, and not just percentages. This is the Austrian 1840 population census of Croatia-Slavonia (1,605,730):

  • 777,880 Croats (48%)
  • 504,179 Serbs (32%)
  • 297,747 Šokci (19%)
Which makes it 67% vs. 32% in favour of Croats. Afrika Paprika 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice the number of Serbs? Are you going to claim that they all lived in Eastern Srijem? Now, here's the Austro-Hungarian population census on the Lika-Krbava county of Croatia-Slavonia from 1910 (204,710):

  • 104,041 Eastern Orthodox (51%)
  • 100,620 Roman Catholics
  • 14 Greek Catholics
  • 12 Jews
  • 6 Lutherans
  • 2 Calvinists

I don't know what's your opinion. That all those Serbs just appeared from nowhere? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are you trying to say but I never stated that Serbs lived exclusively in Syrmia and Banatian Frontier...I said that that the reason why there were equal number of Croats and Serbs in the WHOLE Military Frontier is because it included large parts of Serbian populated areas that are later (and are today) part of Serbia. Read with understanding. I was referring to Croatian and Slavonian Frontier that are to this day part of Croatia and have been such for hundreds of years. Afrika Paprika 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the Lika Regimental Area (Donji Lapac, Srb, Udbina, Gospic, Medak, Bag, Gracac) had a 70% Serbian majority - I already mentioned that. The 1st Banate regiment (the Slunj regiment - Clunj, Cetin, Vojnic, Karlovac) had a 67% Serbian majority and the 2nd Banate regiment (Glin regiment - Zirovac, Topusko, Vrgin most, Glina) had a 62.2% Serb majority. In the Petrovaradin regimental area (Novi Sad, Titel, Sremski Karlovac, Slankamen, Pancevo, Zemun, Raca, Sremska Mitrovica, Kupinovo) had a 63.2% Serb majority.

Yes? I am afraid I don't follow you. You have posted yourself above the data that Croats were majority thus confirming what I was saying. Afrika Paprika 23:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Data from 1991 which is more relevant:

Croatia was administrativly divided in municipalities in 1991, and previous territories of

  • Karlovac borderland included municipalities of;
Ogulin, Gospić, Otočac, Slunj, Korenica, Gračac, Senj, Vojnić and Donji Lapac and parts of municipalities of Karlovac, Duga Resa, Crikvenica, Delnice and Vrbovsko.
  • Banska Hrvatska borderland included municipalities of;
Petrinja, Glina, Hrvatska Kostajnica, Vrginmost(Gvozd),Dvor and parts of Sisak municipality.
  • Varaždin borderland included municipalities of Bjelovar, Koprivnica, Đurđevac, Garešnica, Čazma Grubišno Polje, and parts of municipalities of Kutina, Križevci, Vrbovec and Ivanić Grad.

Ethnic situation it that municipalities in 1991 was; Croats(%) Serbs(%) Number of people in municipality

  • Ogulin 60,4 34,8 29095
  • Gospić 64,1 30,9 29049
  • Otočac 65,4 31,1 24992
  • Slunj 63,8 29,2 18962
  • Korenica 17,5 75,4 11393
  • Gračac 16,3 80,2 10434
  • Senj 92,9 2,2 9205
  • Vojnić 1,4 89,4 8236
  • Donji Lapac 0,5 97,5 8054
  • Sumation 54,2 43,4 149420
  • Karlovac 63,8 26,7 81319
  • Duga Resa 89,4 6,5 30485
  • Crikvenica 85,0 4,8 19154
  • Delnice 90,1 3,4 17848
  • Vrbovsko 56,8 34,5 7528
  • Sumation 74,1 17,8 156332
  • Petrinja 44,4 44,9 35565
  • Glina 34,9 60,7 23040
  • Vrginmost(Gvozd) 24,4 70,7 16599
  • Hrvatska Kostajnica 28,9 62,9 14851
  • Dvor 9,6 86,5 14555
  • Sumation 32,1 60,8 104610
  • Sisak 64,8 22,8 84348
  • Bjelovar 80,4 8,9 66039
  • Koprivnica 89,9 5,0 61052
  • Đurđevac 97,1 0,5 40901
  • Garešnica 77,5 11,2 18442
  • Čazma 91,1 4,5 15263
  • Grubišno Polje 42,3 32,0 14206
  • Sumation 84,3 7,6 215903
  • Kutina 82,9 7,9 39520
  • Križevci 94,6 2,4 39248
  • Vrbovec 94,0 2,0 28074
  • Ivanić Grad 93,9 1,3 25592
  • Sumation 91,5 3,8 131434

Results for municipalities which were entirely in Croatian Krajina

  • Croats (%) 63,1
  • Serbs (%) 30,8
  • Summations 469933

Results for municipalities of which parts were in Croatian Krajina

  • Croats (%) 78,1
  • Serbs (%) 14,0
  • Sumations 372114

And also the percentage of occuppied Eastern Slavonia: 57,208 (30.4%) Serbs 92,398 (49.1%) Croats 35,578 (20.5%) others

The source is 1991. official Croatian census. What do you have to say about that? Afrika Paprika 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. I don't know even what was the dispute. You were saying that Croats formed the majority of the Military Frontier - I prooved otherwise. You also said that there was no ethic cleansing in Operation Storm; however when I asked you if you agree that whenever a Serb/Croat is killed or tortured because he/she is a Serb/Croat or whenever property of Croats/Serbs is stolen or destroyed because it was owned by Croats/Serbs is ethnic cleansing, you did not respond - these two were the things I was explaining to you. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said Croats formed the majority in Military Frontier but in PARTS of Military Frontier....namely Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier speciically the ones that are part of Croatia to this day. And the issue was wheter the 'Operation Storm' had it's goal and consequence of 'ethnic cleansing'...the answer is no. If you wish to discuss generally of the meaning of the term 'ethnic cleansing' then your hypothesis is right.Afrika Paprika 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks like "Greater Serb shit" are not appropriate on an encyclopedia. Please, we don't endorse that kind of wording in here. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you find any other appropriate word? Afrika Paprika 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No one said that Operation Storm's goal was ethnic cleansing. It most certainly was not. However, you cannot both agree to my definition of "ethnic cleansing" and claim that it didn't occur in Operation Storm - it's illogical. Even at the end, when Tudjman entered Knin, he expressed satisfaction how Serbs will never exceed 3-4% of Croatia's population anymore - indirectly meaning (good we ethnicly cleansed enough of them).

If you don't see what's wrong with "Greater Serb shit" - than you heave a problem, not me. As I remember, you said that your sole goal is neutrality and objectivity. However, such a person can't write such posts. If you want to further understand why is this kind of behaveour banned on Wikipedia, please see WP:CIVIL. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not me "disagreeing" with your definition but that the sources and overall view does not agrees with you. It is not proven that it was an ethnic cleansing as you claim. Operation Storm was a legal military action to free occuppied teritory of a sovereign nation. It was confirmed by both the UN and the international community. Also Tudjman never said no such thing. And crap about "Greater Serbia" is shit and I am really sorry for you if you see it otherwise. That is your problem not mine. Afrika Paprika 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you incinuating that obeying Wikipedia's policy is a problem of mine... and your disobeying isn't? I will yet again point you towards Wikipedia Guidelines that you should follow: e see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia:Profanity. You BROKE Wikipedia:Civil. Please stop trying to point the "guilt" towards me - I just want to point out what is not allowed on Wikipedia - and if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with Wikipedia itself and shouldn't be here. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is 'insinuating' and yes I am insinuating that you bend rules as you see it fit. Now I don't need you or anyone else explaining me rules of Wikipedia, if you want to discuss in good manner (which you proved you do not) then ok, if not spare me. Afrika Paprika 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I do want - the sole purpose of my posts is to teach you Wikipedia's rules. You broke a rule - and that qualifies you for a block. I was trying to save you from one.
You cannot teach me anything least wikipedia's rule. First you must obey them yourself to preach others on it. Afrika Paprika 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I can't see how you fail to see ethnic cleansing in Operation Storm. Monasteries from the 14th century were ransacked and over 3,000 people is missing, presumably dead. I am not applying sources (and I did before, BBC and plenty of others consider it ethnic cleansing - even the UN as per Gotovina's charge), but common sence. You cannot say that this is true, but it isn't. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The reposnsibility for ranskacking, looting and exile of people is on the Serbian leadership not on anyone's else....least on valid and legitemate military action to stop the war, liberate occuppied teritory and enable people to return to their homes after four years of exile. None of your sources confirms anything of the sort. Afrika Paprika 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop putting words into my mouth... All I was trying to say is that your broke Wikipedia's rule WP:CIVIL when you said "Greater Serb shit". This qualifies for a block/ban from Wikipedia, but I'm not going to report you since you're still having your first experience in Wikipedia's policy. Now, are you trying to say that you didn't brake the rule (and thus shouldn't receive punishment)? If you think I broke any rule, any at all, please cite and I'll even report myself.
Cite me where I have "put words in your mouth". Please I'd really like to see it. The "Greater Serbia" crap is shit and I am sorry if that offends you...sorry my opinion and your problem. Afrika Paprika 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The reposnsibility for ranskacking, looting and exile of people is on the Serbian leadership not on anyone's else... What do you mean by this? Are you saying that in the world only the Serbian leadership organized such things? Or are you refering strictly to the Yugoslav wars? Either way - there goes your saying that you are strictly for objectivity and neutrality. Aside from braking Wikipedia's rules, no such man would say such daring things. What are we going to do, compare casualties, discuss historical irridentism and age-old nationalistic fervor now? Do you realize that if I mention a single looting, ransacking and exile your claim is disbanded? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am saying that the supposed "ethnic cleansing" was organized by the Serbian leadership. We have documents CONFIRMING IT. And let me ask you a counter question - what are we know going to pretend that no one is guilty or more correctly that all are equally guilty? No way Jose...Serb terrorists storn down half of Croatia and almost whole Bosnia-Herzegovina...sorry but there cannot be equal guilt. We both know who the aggressor was and the whole world know is it. Deal with it. Afrika Paprika 23:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ante Gotovina

Ante Gotovina is charged atrocities against Croatian Serbs during the Yugoslav Civil wars, including the murder of 150 in Krajina. Gotovina is charged with responsibility for the alleged murder of about 150 Serbs, persecution, and the deportation of thousands. About 200,000 Serbs - many elderly - were forced out of the region during the offensive.

Yes 150 including cows and people who were still alive when the indicment was wrote or are alive still. Ridiculous. Many have stated the obvious - the indicment against Gotovina is political. He was a minor figure in all of that. Let them actually prove it. Afrika Paprika 23:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The UN representatives said about Gotovina: Gotovina knew or had reason to know that forces under his effective control were about to murder Krajina Serbs, and Gotovina failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the commission of such acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.

These are the points of the 14-page long indictment of Gotovina by the ICTY:

  • Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, deportation and other inhumane acts (forced displacement) - three counts of crimes against humanity
  • Other inhumane acts - one count of crimes against humanity
  • Murder - one count of violations of the laws or customs of war
  • Plunder of public or private property and wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages - two counts of violations of the laws or customs of war

BBC clearly confirms Gotovina's acts as ethnic cleansing.

From BBC: Although Operation Storm was a considerable military success, it was accompanied by the exodus of nearly 200,000 Serbs. Hundreds of Serb civilians were killed - mostly elderly people who stayed on after their families had left.

Where do you see "ethnic cleansing" in this quote? And when is BBC as something you can refer to such issue? How did they came up with the term "hundreds of civilians killed" when the UN sources say explicitly that the casualties were MINIMAL? Afrika Paprika 23:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In two days, Croatia retook all the territories where rebel Serbs had succeeded in setting up a self-proclaimed state - the Krajina Republic - four years earlier.

Hundreds were killed by the advancing troops.

The United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has indicted three Croatian military officers for crimes against ethnic Serbs in the 1995 offensive.

Your claim of cleansing 250,000 from Krajina is a harsh overestimate. Krajina had a population of more than 78,000 Croats and about 2,000 Muslims in 1991. So how could you exile 250,000 citizens? Also - at the start of the Croatian War of Independence - over 200,000 ethnic Croats have been displaced and over 300,000 ethnic Serbs altogether in Croatia (up to 1993).

1. There is no "Krajina"...never was never will be. 2. I cited you above the data of the occuppied territories...there were more than 205 000 were Croats and this was confirmed by that same UN you call upon yourself. Afrika Paprika 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotovina is alleged to have failed to prevent the murder of 150 Serbs killed by shooting, stabbing or burning during Operation Storm, the August 1995 push against Serb forces in Croatia's Krajina region.

Again there is no "Krajina region". Find me a historical map with this supposed "region"....just one. And second 'alleged' is the key word. You have to prove it first....but you don't have proof. In fact we have documents from the leadership of Serb terrorist which order full withdrawal of all (para)military AND CIVILIANS. Most of those who decided to leave never even saw Croatian soldiers as their "exile" begun 2 days before 'Operation Storm' even took place. Afrika Paprika 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever hear of the October 1991 Gospic massacre, when ethnic Serbs were massacred in the city by Croatian armed forces. The indicted Croatian soldiers admitted that they received orders from the High Croatian Chain in Command ethnicly cleanse. Did you ever hear of the Dalmatian 1991 Serb Pogrome? How about the 1993 Operation Medak Pocket? Please, don't be fully one-sided and claim that you're "...only for objectivity and neutrality..."

Did you hear about Ovcara, Skabrnja, Lovas, Erdut, Vocin, etc, etc? Do you want me to go on? Also what does that have to do with 'Operation Storm'? Medak Pocket military action was also valid and legal...all we have is a word of some drunk canadians who orgied with Chetnik terrorists. Afrika Paprika 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with the fact that you're claiming that all the exiling, ransacking, etc. is solely on the Serbian side, When it's not. Also - did you ever hear of the Lora prison camp? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It has to do that MOST of the ransacking, looting and killing was made on the Serbian and the fact that the Serbian side was the FIRST TO INSTIGATE such behaviour. Unlike Croatian war crimes which were individual retribution acts, Serbian side committed crimes with the intent and forethought to commit them. Afrika Paprika 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You said that I have to obey Wikipedia's rules myself - tell me, which rules have I disobeyed? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR rule, Cite rule, consensus rule, verifiability rule. Just to name a few. Afrika Paprika 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me cite then UN if you don't know yourself. This is the 1991 estimate for UNPA North and South Zone (that's Krajina):

  • 169,906 Serbs (over 67%)
  • 69,646 Croats (below 28%)
  • 13,101 others (around 5%)
Oh what about those more than 90 000 from the sector East of the occuppied teritory? Also the official census....on which you called yourself as well prior...says in the zones South and North were more than 110 000 Croats living. Afrika Paprika 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, please stop objecting the usage of "Krajina" and keep asking me for historical maps... I can't see your WP:POINT there. Krajina is the region of the former RSK in Croatia - and "Krajina" is its historical name. It is in usage by the whole world and I sincerely don't understand your objection. --HolyRomanEmperor 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry won't do. I will always object to the usage of the word "Krajina" as such a thing does not exists...never has and never will. Not as "region" nor as political entity. I am again asking you to show me one historical map showing me this "historical region." Afrika Paprika 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if we sum up all of yours, we would get 200,000 - not 250,000 - and Croats remained a strong minority in RSK during the war, and remained a majority in the east. I do not count the East UNPA, It has been controlled by Yugoslav forces and Miloshevich's authority, wasn't included in the later RSK census and had very little common things with RSK (aside from officially being a part of it). Additionally, there were 6,864 Croats in UNPA West; so that's altogether 78,000 Croats in RSK. Anyway, I do not count that either - we're talking only about Krajina, not Slavonia. --PaxEquilibrium 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If we sum it up we get more than 250 000 non-Croats exiled from their homes. Croats did not remain a strong minority in the "RSK" because they were all either exiled, forced to fled or killed and imprisoned. The supposed "RSK census" was a pure hogwash and propaganda and no one serious would ever take it as something valid. They even forged the number of the Serbs there. So please spare me of serbian extremist propaganda. Afrika Paprika 03:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See the map to the up - it shows Krajina. What does "there never was, nor will ever be" mean? It was an entity in 1579-1881 and remained the name of the geographical region ever since. It was also a political entity in 1990-1995. --PaxEquilibrium 00:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the map up shows 'Vojna Krajina' which was a political-military entity in the past. I however fail to find any mention and map of the supposed "krajina region" as you mentioned it. Also I fail to see the connection you propose of 'Vojna Krajina' with the supposed "Republic of Serbian Krajina", a small and rogue terrorist self proclaimed quasi-state occuppiying Croatian teritory with no historical and political legaliy. So once again - please show me at least one historical map of this supposed "krajina region". Afrika Paprika 03:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also - I noticed you were discussing how the Croatian state was born in Dalmatia (Croatia) and Slavonia (Pannonia). Well, we place that the inhabitants of the Principality of Pannonia were ethnic Croats - and yet, no such Croatian state was born there. Dalmatia's Duke Tomislav Trpimirović defended it from Hungarian invasions and annexed it to his Croatian Kingdom in 925. Barely a century later, in 1027, it was taken over by the Hungarians who made it into a Slavonian Banate ruled by a native family. Although it was reunited with Croatia throughout the 1070s, it immediately recognized Hungarian rule at first chance in 1091 (over a decade later). After centuries (during which Slavonia was even a part of Serbia for a while), Slavonia was subjected to Croatia in 1476. It was lost (mostly) to the Ottomans after 1526. In 1699, the "Kingdom of Slavonia" was reorganized, vassalaged to the Kingdom of Hungary; while the Slavonian Krajina was independent. Croats are registered as a minority throughout this period in Slavonia. In 1848 Croatia conquered Slavonia, but it became independent in 1849. Slavonia joined Croatia into a personal union in 1868 and Slavonian Krajina was annexed in 1881. Slavonia was a seperate entity - the Osijek Oblast in 1922-1929 and became a part of the Sava Banate in 1929-1939 - when it was made a part of the Croatian Banate. It was a part of the Independent State of Croatia in 1941-1945 and a part of Croatia till the present.

However, where's the birth of the Croatian state there in the early history? --PaxEquilibrium 15:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that your knowledge of history is not your better part. I never argued that Croatian state was born in Slavonia(Pannonia) so I don't know where did you get it but you certainly didn't saw me arguing such a thing. The DAI and Porphyrogenitus, to which you like to call yourself upon when mentioning the supposed Serbian population in the southern Dalmatian medieval princiapalities, also mentiones Croats a chapter before that and says the same for Croats (regarding the mentioned Dalmatian princiapalities) but he also talks about one part of Croats going back north and settling in Lower Pannonia (later Slavonia). Slavonia however was at that time region of today central Croatia (area around Zagreb, Moslavina, Zagorje, upper Karlovac region and most of todays westernmost Slavonia region....Medjimurje not included). The part which is today commonly known as Slavonia (mostly) was actually Syrmia and part of Hungary and often disputed between (in early times) Byzantium, Bulgaria and Hungary (of which [Hungary] it was the most part of). Slavonia (early medieval) became part of Croatian Kingdom while as mentioned Syrmia (most of today Slavonia) remained part of Hungarian domain. King Dmitar Zvonimir who was of junior Trpimirovic dynasty (Svetoslavic) came from this early medieval Slavonia for example. Later after the Turks conquest and liberation of from the Turks (end of 17th century) most of what is today Slavonia (then nominally Kingdom of Slavonia) and Syrmia formed a new region-kingdom of Slavonia. Although Slavonia was treated as separate crown land it was united with Croatia since 1476 in a single ruler and parliament. The 'Military Frontier' mentioned was formed as a buffer zone for better defense against Ottomans and was never independent (including 'Slavonian Frontier') but rather teritory of mentioned crown-lands (Croatia, Slavonia, Banat of Temes) under direct command of Vienna and military. Also I don't see how the 45.7% of population (by the 1790 census which didn't include 'Slavonian Frontier' and included mostly Serbian inhabitated western Syrmia) can be classified as "minority" as you put it. Also I fail to see how this has to do with anyhing. Afrika Paprika 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I cuoted the BBC - there were 80,000 non-Serbs in Krajina in 1991. The RSK 1993 census indeed seems to be incorrect; it noted only 7% Croat population, while I think we all agree was a lot larger (which again, if you don't agree - goes against your arguements - Croats remained as a minority and stayed as a majority in the east).
The BBC is not a valid "reference". As I said there were no Croats in "RSK" because they were exiled. Afrika Paprika 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean - are you saying that we should say "Croatian Krajina" or "Serb Krajina" all the time? Geez, man; that's just saving words "Krajina" - one less word instead of two. You can see the map in 1990-1995 when it was a political entity. And it is a geographical entity since the 16th cenutury. Every country has its own Krajina region - Serbia has Timocka Krajina - Montenegro has Kraja - Croatia has this Krajina - Macedonia has some - you're overreacting. I'll compare: "There is no "Russia", tell me, where did you ever see a "Russia" that's just some Russian propagandist garbage!" Do you understand?

Actually we should not say neither 'Croatian Krajina' since it was abolished in 19th century nor "Serb Krajina" which never existed. The teritory is simply Croatia. Was, is and will be. The "political entity" you speak of was not recognized and officially it did not exist...only Croatia was recognized and still is at the UN and will remain as such. In short Croatia has no "Krajina" and no such region exists...it is simply Croatia proper, it has however 'Sinjska Krajina', 'Imotska Krajina', etc. Afrika Paprika 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said: Byzantine sources call Pannonians Croats (and Upper Dalmatians moslty Serbs). On this Wikipedia, we place that the population of Pannonia (Posavina) was ethnicly Croat. And a state was born in Pannonia in the fisrt half of the 9th century - however, it didn't have a strict Croatian national like the latter movement in Dalmatia, nor did it last. The Serbian state, however, was born in southern Dalmatia. --PaxEquilibrium 10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Again don't see what this has to do with anything. I just explained you above which you seem not to read at all. Also Serbian state was born in southern Dalmatia but in Rashka not in Dicolea as you suggest and propagate. Afrika Paprika 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your view of Krajina is understandable - if it doesn't exist for you, then it doesn't. However, even BBC and UN use it - so I don't really see the necessity to dispute it.

The fact they use it doesn't make it right. The only one who is to say what is or what is not to be used is history and historical reference and of course the Croatian state itself. No such thing as "Krajina region" ever existed...it is the "Greater Serbian" falsification and extremism. Afrika Paprika 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that every single time when we're refering to Banija, Kordun and eastern Lika we have to say "Banija, Kordun, east Lika, etc.". Wouldn't it make more sence to refer to it as simply - Krajina?

No it wouldn't because "Krajina" doesn't exist. Do you understand that or do you have some other problems which are disabling your understading of this simple fact? The parts are simple to refer 'Croatia proper'. Refer to WHKMLA historical region reference map. -> http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/balkans/haxcroatia.html Afrika Paprika 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "Was, is and will be" I don't see as relevant. Kosovo was & is a part of Serbia - but who knows what will it be. We cannot predict. How can we know that Paris will be always in France? What if it becomes the HQ of a centralist European state? I repeat: There is no "Russia", tell me, where did you ever see a "Russia"? That's just some Russian propagandist garbage! Please reply to this last comparison.

You are ranting. Refer to historical maps. Afrika Paprika 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1034 Stefan Vojislav, a descendent of the old Doclean House of Vladimir (currently sanctified by the Serb Orthodox Church, in the manner of the Nemanyiden). Stefan liberated Duklja; in this 11th-12th centuries period, Byzantines glorify the Serbs of Dalmatia, calling Stefan Voislav "Archont of Serbs", his land "Serb land", "populated by Serbs" as well as his two great successors: Mihailo and Bodin ("Serb Egzarchs", "rulling over the Serbs"); there is only one one instance when it is said how Mihailo is "the one who rules the Croats"; although the same paragraph contains "Croats, who're also called Serbs". This free state expanded to and liberated the whole Bulgarian Empire, annexed Travunia, Zachlumia and finally Rascia and Bosnia. Ever since, those entities remained united under one rule. A branch of that rulling family, the "House of Vukan/Uros" became the hereditary ruling dynasty of Rascia and Doclea, Travunia and Zachlumia for a while. The next branch of this dynasty, "Nemanjics", went to Rascia and seized control over it and ruling a unified Serb state for two whole centuries. Stefan Nemanja, a member of the Doclean ruling dynasty and founder of the Nemanjics was born in Ribnica, the largest continental town of Duklja. Zeta remained as the HQ of the Serbian state up to the late 13th century when it was replaced by Macedonia and Kosovo. Another great Serbian dynasty, the "House of Brankovic", is from Travunia; the House of Mrnjavcevic (to whom Marko Kraljevic belongs) is from Zachlumia. Even later, this continued, as the Karadjordjevichs and Obrenovichs came from Montenegro to Serbia. The Petrovic-Njegoshs are from Herzegovina (anciently known as Hum-Zachlumia). Tell me, what am I propagating?

The Serbian state beginings are in Rascia not Dioclea. These are historical facts. Huge parts of Greece were also part of Serbian state during medieval times...are you going to argue northern Greece is the "cradle" of Serbian nation too? Ridiculous... Afrika Paprika 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is using UN as a source. 78,000 Croats and 2,000 Muslims in RSK-controlled parts of the republic. Together as a whole, there were around 168,000 croats (but 90,000 Croats in the East remained a majority). The UN made a list up in 1993. Over 100,000 Croats have left RSK (that's it), while almost 100,000 Serbs had come to RSK under same reasons from the rest of Croatia. You said Unlike Croatian war crimes which were individual retribution acts, Serbian side committed crimes with the intent and forethought to commit them. Do you really justify retribution?

The ICTY indicment is just that - indicment. It needs to be proved and furthermore it needs to be acceppted by the international community and the UN itself. The UN itself however cannot even agree on this and tend to take a completely opposite stance from ICTY. In short ICTY is political court which has a duty to equal the guilt among the confronted sides which is impossible. I do not condone retribution however I do understand why some people couldn't help themselves....especially when I do not know how I would react under such circumstances. Afrika Paprika 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a large POV on RSK. Imagine if I said that Croatia is a "terrorist quasi-state that terrorized its population, occupying 17% of Yugoslav territory". The only difference is that RSK's independence wasn't recognized, while Croatia's was.

And you woul be laughed out. The problem is this: Croatia was federal part of Yugoslav Federation, as such it had the right to secede if the people in Croatia wanted so. The so-called "Krajina" simply didn't existed ever in history and thus it was occuppation of teritory of a sovereign state recognized later by the UN as well. Even Serbia led by Milosevic and radicals didn't recognize this terorrist quasi-state. These are the facts and I don't see how stating clear and obvious facts can be POV. Afrika Paprika 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember you saying how you're only interested in objectivity and neutrality. Constantly inflating the Serb people as terrorist, calling them "Chetniks" and justifying atrocities against them as retribution shows otherwise.

Serbian people no, the rebel terorrist and occuppiers of teritory of a sovereign state yes. The butchers, thieves and criminals who murdered, exiled and bombarded Croatian cities and villages on daily basis killing thousands of civilians and ruining civilian targets including UNESCO recognized monuments cannot be described as anything else. It's clear as day. Afrika Paprika 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. - you should read some great Croatian writers, like Miroslav Krleza and Pero Budak. Pero Budak was a great Croat-Serb patriot from eastern Lika that told the History of Lika and the whole of Krajina in a very good/interesting way. I admire him and am sad that there aren't a lot like him. Try reading his books. --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't have the need nor will to read outdated pan-slavic(Yugoslav) propaganda. Sorry. Afrika Paprika 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not condone retribution however I do understand why some people couldn't help themselves.... I can't see how you can.

Perhaps you cannot....most likely because you havent lost anyone the way I did. Perhaps because you didn't go through what I went through and what my family went through, what my friends went through. And then when I think that there were people who had far worse things happen to them yes I must say I can definately understand them. Afrika Paprika 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand murderers - nor do i intend to understand them. Also, your constant criticism of ICTY, the UN, BBC, Catholic Encyclopedia, DAI, Encyclopedia Britannica whenever they talk of Serbs as victims or in a good way, I really cannot understand.

The ICTY indicment is not valid source anyway can confirm it to you. Any indicment until proven(and even then as well hardly) cannot be really considered as valid source. Even less what some news station is saying. As for DAI you know very well that it is conflicting source and that it can be taken in many ways...you however choose to take it the way it suits you and your nationalistic agenda. Afrika Paprika 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been searching for neutral sources, as you can see - while you just "Nein, nein!! GrosSerbien Chetnik terrorismus!!!", "Jo negociata!" and "goals justify the means". I remember you mentioned that your sole opinion is neutrality and objectivity. What happened with that? Did you notice that I did not negate a single thing you said, unlike you, who keeps denying anything I present to you, regardless of what it is? And you even denied "Krajina". Please, show a little good faith. How can't you see that you're one-sided on this one. The sooner you notice, the better will be for both of us, and so can we edit in peace & harmony.
It is not me who needs to show objectivity and neutrality. I alreay said, your constant enforcment of the so-called "krajina" shows your true face. That term is used by no one else than Serbian radicals or their symapthizers....yes even in mainstream media such as BBC. Afrika Paprika 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed how you claimed that no such thing as the Serbo-Croat existed = well, it did; and in a way it still does.

Sorry but it did not. Even during Yugoslavia the two languages were separate. "Serbo-Croatian" or Central-South Slavic diasystem is not a language. Search a bit about the term "diasystem". Afrika Paprika 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionally, Croatia had the right to seceded if it people wanted only if all other Republics agree. Croatia had the support of only 1 Republic for its independence - Slovenia; thus, her secession was unconstitutional.

Really? What about Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia? Thats 4 vs. 2. The only republic which oppposed were Montenegro(under strickt Serbian control) and Serbia itself under the leadership of Milosevic. Afrika Paprika 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Croatia was before the state of both Croats & Serbs, and if one nation of the two boycotted, the highest decisions cannot be accepted and are unconstitutional (so national benefit of bigger over lesser nations is avoided). However, the 1990 (many argue nationalistic) Constitution of Croatia downgraded the rights of Serbs down to a national minority, attempting to bypass the ol' rule - not aware that the bringing of the 1990 Constitution was boycotted by Serbs (thus, again; unconstitutional).

Explain to me how 11% of population can be on equal terms as the majority of 78%? There is no such case anywhere in the world. Even now as Serbia is now alone at last you are introducing the same and similar constitution which is also similar to any other constitution of other democratic states. The so-called "nationalistc constitution" of Croatia had a whole chapter devoted to Serbs saying they are euqal citizens of Croatia. The constitution itself on the very first page say "Croatia is state of it it's all citizen" which obviously included Serbs. Only Milosevic and his radical cronies to use Serbs in Croatia and to cause mass histeria started that crap about "nationalistic constitution" and "abolition of rights of Serbs in Croatia" which was obviously crap. Afrika Paprika 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean by "Krajina never existed in the past". The Military Frontier did - and even that it didn't, what does it matter? A democratic Republic of Croatia never existed before, either. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did recognize the independence of RSK (as well as Greece, Soviet Union (Russia), etc... but never globally); and Serbia (don't you mean Yugoslavia?) was not led by radicals, but socialists alone.

Actually no one ever recognized "RSK". Sorry. Afrika Paprika 21:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the word terrorism - please read the article. Also, how to call all those Croats that attacked UNESCO monuments, damaging 700-year old monuments of Serb culture, all those soldiers that went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Gospic, the anti-Serb mass riots in Dalmatia in 1991; all those responsible (or at least partialy) for wholesome removal of a people from a country - does this justify us to call them "Greater Croat Ustashe"? No, it doesn't.

It is rather distastful for you to talk as if the Serbs were the victims here....the Serb were the agressors "my friend". It was they who exiled and murdered Croats first, it was they who unprovoked started bombarding Croatian cities and villages. It was they in fact who torn down churches and monuments....even their own...yes even their own. The Serbian Chetnik terorrist had little concern for anything even their cultural heritage or rather especially cultural heritage. Afrika Paprika 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't have the need nor will to read outdated pan-slavic(Yugoslav) propaganda. Sorry. Afrika Paprika 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... Since I suppose that you're going to say the very same thing for the world's finest Croat writers - Ivo Andric or Dzivo Gundulic, tell me; what do you read of Croatian literature? If you consider Croatian finest linguistical acheivements "propaganda", tell me please: which Croatian writer did you read and what work percisely liked? --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ivo Andric belonged to totally different times and this especially goes for Gundulic. Afrika Paprika 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BiH was in 1991 under influence of neutrality (despite under strict Izetbegovic control), allowed JNA forces to pass to Croatia and many Bosnians participated in it. The Republic of Macedonia is the only Republic that seceded constitutionally.

Neutrality but acceppted secession of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia if they wished so. The cause for their neutrality was because they thought they could go without conflict...they were wrong. Also I don't see how Macedonian secession was legal and constitutional and Slovenian and Croatian wasn't. Your "arguments" are simply laughable. Afrika Paprika 21:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to you, half the globe are "Serb sympathizers".

Serbo-Croatian existed since the early 19th century up to present-day. It has many variations, East Herzegovinian being the largest (which I proudly speak) or dialects such as Iekavian (being the largest and that which I speak). If anyone sees the map, he/she will notice that seperations on 3 (or 5) languages is just a political creation, and not linguistical (which most other encyclopeadias agree: Britannica, LaRousse, Brockhaus, etc... all still use "Serbo-Croat".

It never existed. Croatian and Serbian languages were always two separate entities which grew and developed independently. The fact they were based on similar base and that they were brough a bit closer even during struggle against Habsburg Monarchy doesn't mean they were the same. Even during Yugoslavia there was clear distinction between the so-called "western variant"(Croatian language) and "eastern variant"(Serbian) and if you for example confused these two in school while writing an essey you would get an F big as a house. The point is the "Serbo-Croatia" is a diasystem....a dialectal continuum spanning from Slovenia to Bulgaria....and this dialectal continuu can be actually enlarged to Slovenia and Bulgaria and the transition phases in dialects can be easily observed. All today standard languages are "political creations".Afrika Paprika 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There were more than 11% Serbs in Croatia (and a heck more before). I nowhere mentioned equal terms, but Law and Constitutionality. Constitutions might've been wrong, really bad anywhere - but hey, Constitution's a Constitution, you must admit! Anyway - it's sole purpose was to prevent the imposition of will of the bigger people, contrary to the interests of the lesser people (which after the 1990s became true, as Croat people dominated over the Serb people). If you didn't know, this system was (since 1974) and is still used in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

By which census? The ICTY or the 1991 Croatian census? Make up your mind already. At one point you refer to ICTY sources(wrong) and at one point at official 1991. census. The 1991. census says there were 205 000 Croats in the so-called "RSK" and more than 70 000 other non-Serbs. Make up your mind. Also Croatian people had every right to dominate in Croatia....it was after all - Croatia. What would you like instead that 11% domaintes over 79% of others? Don't be ridiculous. Also Bosnia-Herzegovina is totally unique case and cannot be compared. Afrika Paprika 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Croatia's Constitution says "Croatia is the nation-state of the Croat people...'"; its the national state of Croats wherever they live, and not a state of its citizens; later it mentions minorities (Serbs, Hungarians, Italians, etc.) The Constitution further mentions the so-called "hrvatska povijesna prava", which was interpreted as an amends for a "Greater Croatia" over BiH and parts of Serbia and Montenegro by some; it talks about a "tisućljetnja tradicija and it talks about the national fight for self-determination. AFAIC, it is the Constitution of Serbia that defines Serbia "The state of its inhabitants" and still today defines the Serbo-Croatian language the official language of Serbia. ;)

And it continues "...and all of it's citizens...". Take a look at any other constitution in Europe. You will find the same terminology. Serbia included. Why couldn't the Croats be "constitutional people" in Serbia for example? And what does that mean anyway? I am asking you again....would it be right that 11%(now 4.5%) dominates over 79%(now 95.5%) of other people living in one state? Don't be ridiculous. Also I am talking about the new Serbian constitution soon to be adopeted(it already went through some procedure as I heard yesterday on the news) not the old communist Serbian constitution. As for the the rights it speaks of autchtonous Croatian people living in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Vojvodna/Serbia and Montenegro. You will find same terminology in other constitution...even more radical such as Irish constitution or the new Serbian constitution(if Kosovo become indepedenent). Afrika Paprika 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ivo Andric belonged to times different from Budak and Krleza? Hmmm... very odd for people that lived practicly in the same time??? Also, you didn't mention - tell me, which Croat writer did you particularely like? And what work.
Not really "practically the same". Andric lived in 19th century while Krleza and Budak lived in early to mid 20 century. A lot has changed during those times. Which Croatian writes I like? Tin Ujevic, Vladimir Nazor, Dragutin Tadijanovic, Dobrisa Cesaric. I am more into prose and peoms rather than novels actually. Afrika Paprika 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask you this, since you obviously consider the peak of the Croatian linguistical omnibus irridentist propaganda... --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You said this not me. Don't from where do you come up with this stuff. Afrika Paprika 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Other matters

Yes, you did. I asked you to read Miroslav Krleza and Pero Budak. You said Don't have the need nor will to read outdated pan-slavic(Yugoslav) propaganda. Sorry. Afrika Paprika 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Since you would obviously say taht for the pro-Serb Ivo Andric and Dzivo Gundulic, I was wondered how you consider the peak of the Croat linguistical corpus proganda?

You have pointed me to things I am not interested thus my statement I am not interested in pro-Yugoslavian lietrature. And yes even Gundulic's literature(some) belong to this sphere of work. Though his praise of Serbs was mainly due to their struggle with the Turks...he also praised the Poles and all others who fought against the Turks. I don't see how is this relevant to anything. Afrika Paprika 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Ivo Andric lived in 1892-1975. Miroslav Krleza lived in 1893-1981. Not the same period?

12.2% according to the 1991 Croatian population census, yeah. How's the situation in Bosnia different? Also, Croatia is defined as the nation-state of the Croat people. It nowhere mentions/continues "and all of its citizens". Its the Croat nation-state and the state of Croatia's minorities (Serbs, Muslims, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews and others). The Republic of Macedonia's seccession was constitutional and legal because it yielded a mass majority "for" in its 1991 referendum for macedonian independence and in the Presidential seat it was 8:0 for its secession.

So you acceppt Croatian 1991 census? Why do you then call yourself upon iCTY incorrect data? Is it maybe because the numbers of Croats are smaller? Don't answer that...it's a rhetorical question. And yes the Croatian constitution actually does mentions that Croatia is homeland to Croats and all people living in it including the Serbs. The original draft had one whole division speaking only about Serbs in Croatia and their rights. The Croatian and Slovenian referendum also had huge majority....I don't have the exact figures now but if one looks closely one can come to the conclusion that even the relative majority of Serbs voted pro indepdence despite for calls to ignore the referendum by the Serbian extremists. If Macedonian secession was legal so was Croatian and Slovenian. Afrika Paprika 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbian and Croatian were always one language. In the 19th century the Serbian language and Croatian language were created, only to be subsequently (Croatian after several years - Serbian being a bit younger united even before it was created (-X years)). The Serbo-Croatian language slowly expanded to Bosnia and finally applied to Montenegro and Serbia with the unification. Ever since then until the present (with few gaps) it has been one language. Besides, as I said, the world doesn't divide the languages, and there are so many Serbo-Croat dialects that's impossible to draw an evident line on the soil of the Serbo-Croatian states.

Serbian and Croatian were never one language...if they were they would be referred as such and they never were through history. Both developed on it's own and matured on it's own. It is in fact the opposite...only in recent times(late 19th century and most of the 20th century) the two languages were started coming closer with the goal of ultimately uniting them but that never took place and will never took place as you cannot enforce such a thing. The so-called "Serbo-Croatian" is a diasystem, a dialectal contiuum similar to Macedonian-Bulgarian, Swedish-Norwegian-Danish, Czech-Slovak, etc. Furthermore the term "Serbo-Croatian" is outdated and is politically incorrect. The correct term today is Central-South Slavic diasystem. Educate yourself. Afrika Paprika 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You call the draft of the suggestion for the new Constitution of Serbia radical? More radical than the Croatian? Can't say I agree. Anyway, its far less liberal than the current Serbia's Constitution (the most democratic constitution of Europe) and most importantly it was drawn unconstitutionally and undemocraticly. Thus, I hope that they don't accept it.
I think you talking about Croatian constitution is rather amusing....taking that you showed above that you know nothing of the Croatian constitution. Afrika Paprika 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison of Southern Dalmatia with Greece cannot be applied. First off, Serbs lived in Greece for only a short time when they came (Macedonia); not counting the numerious populace that later came as a result of expansion; whereas they live in Doclea, Zachlumia, Travunia with Konavli and Pagania since the beginning and have their own states there. Greece cannot be craddle, as the majority of the Serbian Medieval ruling dynasties (or better, the majority of Serbs) come from southern Dalmatia, and none come from Greece. While in the 11th century the Serbian state was reborn percisely in the southern Dalmatian coastal areas, no such state was born in Greece. Whereas those states remained under Serbian rule for most of the time since the beginning, Greece was much later conquered and remained a part for a short time in the 14th century. Plus, it is Zeta who was the HQ of the Serbian state up to the 13th century, and not Greece, which was martially conquered.

Actually my comparison can be applied very well as it is the same thing. Also Rascia is Southern Dalmatia as well...at least in the terms Porphyrogenitus refers to it, along with Franks. As for Zeta I do agree to some point with you, but claiming that Dioclea, Travunia and especially Zachlumia and Pagania were Serbian in just absurd and ridiculous. A claim which you cannot confirm...at least not without contradiction. That is why I called upon a consensus and NPOV version while you use dirty tricks in enforcing your nationalistic version of history. Afrika Paprika 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suffered a lot. Me and my family; a lot more than most people did and especially a lot did suffer my sister; and out of that all I only learned the true filth of mankind. I find th Yugoslav wars disguisting; all sides were tainted; moreso since I saw it first hand - and it seems that you learned percisely contrary to what you should - there is no justification for a crime and goals do not justify the means. I am sad that you didn't learn that and that you try to understand evil. --PaxEquilibrium 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I did learn...above all things I learned very well who shot at me while I was still just a kid, who killed and exiled my family, who bombarded my home town on daily basis... All sides did commit crimes but none to such a level and brutality as the Serbs. What you had happened to you can be thanked to the Serbian terrorists and leaders who deluded Serbian people in Croatia for their own personal gain. Afrika Paprika 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You didn't respond on Andric & Krleza. I still don't understand your critics of the highest Croat cultural achievements as propaganda.

I don't need to nor do I want to. It is totally irrelevant to anything we spoke about. Afrika Paprika 15:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept anything. I just read & cite. The ICTY statement refers to the war-time, while the Croatian census was at the beginning of the year. You have misinterpreted the errorous ICTY's results that are presented by (only) the Croatian government as the 1991 population census of the Republic of Croatia. i repeat, it is not mentioned that Croatia is the state of its citizens, but that its the nation-state of the Croat ethnic group; Serbs are mentioned as a minority. over 80% of Croatia's population voted for independence - and yes of course, a large number of Serbs voted for independence. Only if the Presidential Committe unitedly agrees - which happened only in Macedonia's case (not counting Montenegro's recent secession).

The ICTY does not refers to "war-time" but pre-war population. However from where they got their numbers only they know. Perhaps they looked into a crystal ball. And please stop repeating the same bull over and over when it is obvious you don't know nothing about Croatian constitution. As a citizen of Croatia I know quite well what the constitution says and it clearly says "Croatia is a state of Croats and all its citizens". The presidency of Yugoslavia was 4:2 in secession of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. If Slovenia's and Croatia's secession was illegal so was Macedonia, if Macedonia's was legal then was Slovenia's and Croatia's. You cannot have one and another...if its black then its black, if its white then it's white. Make up your mind. Afrika Paprika 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

They are refered to as such by the whole world (west). And they were refered to as such for the greater part of their existence ;) (and are - Serbo-croatian is still the official language of Serbia). Please, read Serbo-Croatian. They were both created in the 19th century parallelly - but with collaboration, only to be united. :D

I don't really know anyone who still refers to this supposed language. The facts are there...it never existing...even during Yugoslavia there was clear distinction. Also I doubt that the new Serbian constitution says "Serbo-Croatian"...there was big critiscism in Serbia why is this formulation still in the constituion although the now old constitution of Serbia is a relic from ex-Yugoslavia. Afrika Paprika 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about the Serbian Constitution. :) My knowledge of the Croatian constitution is limited to itself. I've read it. :)

I & my family lost wholesome material ownership and the cost of living in exile, outside of homeland; in a country where we're foreigners. Your homeland doesn't want you because of your alleged ethnicity and your "new" homeland doesn't want you because you're a foreigner. Do you know what it's like? Many of mine have died, indlucing my only sister in the war. Please bear that on your mind. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you raise your hand against your "homeland" in the first place? I know for sure if I or my family participated in any terrorist and illegal actions against my "homeland" that I would never show my face there or ask anything. My uncle...aunt's husband is a Serb...he spent this whole war in Croatia, nothing happened to him. I know at least 5-6 other people...they even joined the Croatian army. I know people who were on the other side as well and they also still live in Crotia and lead a normal life. You must seem an exception...or is it maybe that you and yours simply don't want to live in Croatia. I wonder...Afrika Paprika 15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bog Paprika!

Hey buddy it seems as if we have been singled out on the operation storm article. I'd apreaciate ur thoughts . We need more ppl like urself who are bold and attemp to fight the Serb bias on many articles. Hurrah 4 Afrika Paprika!

Catalyst in Society (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I thought to go through the article myself and come up with a more NPOV and unbiased version. What did you had in mind? Afrika Paprika 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that wouldnt be too bad. Alot of info there is very Serb POV and i have also just watched a brilliant film by Croatian director, Jakov Sedlar, about Oluja. In it American and French Generals speak in defens of Gotovina and Oluja and talk about the LARGE AMOUNT of Us support for the operation. It is a brilliant NPOV sOURCE.

Catalyst in Society (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not quite familiar with that movie. Haven't seen it yet. Can't it be downloaded ior seen somewhere? Afrika Paprika 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Replies

Yes, it is relevant - you considered the peak of the Croatian linguistical omnibus propaganda; remember?

It is not relevant to anythng we disscussed here. Afrika Paprika 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And I as a citizen of Croatia seem to know it better. :) Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Mađara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, Tell me, where's this "all its citizens"? Also, your lack of knowledge in Yugoslav politics can be seen in the fact that you constantly repeat "4:2" - when there were eight seats in the Presidential Parliament. Macedonia's wasn't - as Macedonia seceded constitutionally, with all parties agreeing.

"Republic of Croatia is founded as a national state of Croatian people and state of other autochtonous national minorities: Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Italian, Hungarians, Jews, Germans, Austrian, Ukrainins, Rusyns and others." = Of Croatian people and all other citizens. What do you not understand here? Problems with thought processing? Afrika Paprika 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat never existing? What are then all those people that spoke (the majority of famous Serb/Croats)? Non-existent prominent individuals? The proposed new constitution doesn't say - but the current one does.

They spoke either Croatian or Serbian. Afrika Paprika 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "" in homeland mean. What on Earth do you mean by "raising my hand against my homeland"? Do you consider living a terrorist and illegal action? I hardly think that all those dead people that I left behind are altogether exceptions, together with me and all the people I know. My sister was executed during the war... and I've spent the last 10 years attempting to get legal rights to restore the ownership that was confiscated/destroyed (pretty much all material ownership). Please, stop being one-sided and see a little from more points of view, not just one. It seems as if you learned the wrong lessen from the war, or you just didn't really experience it. You have to open your eyes.

I mean raising my hand against the country where I was born, that is what I mean. And trust me I did experience it...I have no sympathy for the people who tried to shoot me and slaughter my family, my neighbours and tore down my home city to the ground. Sorry. Afrika Paprika 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You said that a comparison with Greece would be identical - however, it is impossible. Greece never had a Serbian population; it was conquered in the 14th century and never remained a part of it beyond (whereas Upper Dalmatia had a Serbian population from the very beginning and is the location of the formation of Serbian statehood). There are no Serbian dynasties or prominent Serbs from Greece (whereas the majority are from southern Dalmatia). I am rather shocked that you even try to compare the two... Greece was never the centre of the Serb state (when I say "Greece" I do not count Macedonia). --PaxEquilibrium 13:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I have already elaborated on this matter in my previous passages and I do not intend to repeat myself. Afrika Paprika 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You called the peak of the Croatian linguistical omnibus propaganda. That is why it's relevant.

I did not. Afrika Paprika 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You cited "the state of its citizens" - you misquoted. It's the nation-state of the Croat ethnic group, while some ethnic groups have been granted (or downgraded to, as with the Serb case) the status of minorities. It has nothing to do with Croatia being a non-national state, the citizen-state of all its citizens (which it's not); like the case with Serbia.

It seems you do have problems with thought process. Perhaps if you read that passage for some 200-300 times maybe eventually it will get into your head. The passage is clear - Croatia is a country of all of it's citizens living in it. Of course that the constitution will define it also as a country of Croatian people - it is called Croatia after all. Observe constitutions of other countries. Afrika Paprika 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Croatian, and a little later Serbian were forged in the 19th century, only to be called Serbo-Croatian, up to only recently. As far as I see Serbo-Croat has existed (or better, exists) for longer than either of the two languages. Also, are you saying that all those people have had irridentist opinions, that they're all somehow wrong, and that the present nationalistic political minority view outguns them?

Really? So let me understand if I got this right...Marko Marulic in 15th century wrote in "Serbo-Croatian"? I thought he wrote in Croatian? Gundulic also? You see you have been deeply affected by pro-Serbian Yugoslavian propaganda and brainwashed to the death. The facts are that such a lanaguage never existed and never will. I already said even in Yugoslavia there was clear distinction between two version of this supposed "Serbo-Croatian": the western variant(actually Croatian language) and the eastern variant (Serbian language). If you mixed those two in school you would flunk the test/essey/whatever. Croatian and Serbian were always separate and it is the other way around - Croatian and Serbian started coming closer at the end of the 19th centur and in begining of 20th century. Afrika Paprika 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't. You just compared it to Greece, claiming that it's practicly the same thing, while Serbs have had nothing to do with Greece except the short-lived 14th century conquest (you even said that this makes Greece craddle of the Serbian civilization).

I'm glad that you're reasoning.

Greece is not "craddle of Serbian civilization"....thats why my comparison is right in the place because Dioclea and southern Dalmatian principalities (Croatia Rubea) are no more "craddle of Serbian civilzation" then Greece is. Afrika Paprika 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you presenting Serb-POV all the sudden accross the wikipedia through your edits (when you claim you're pro-Croat)? --PaxEquilibrium 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?!? Afrika Paprika 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have also been doing this: posting on talk pages and while reverting logging off, evidently to bypass Wikipedia's policy. Please; do not do that in the future. --PaxEquilibrium 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not such thing. I cannot be held accountable for my provider. Afrika Paprika 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR, edit-warring, sockpuppetry

 You have been blocked for 72h for violation of the three-revert rule on Croats, and edit-warring on Doclea, Travunia, Zahumlje, Pagania; and the uncivility didn't help. I also wasn't favourably impressed by your using anon. accounts to hide your identity.--Aldux 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)|}


Dear Africa

Croatia is nowhere near Africa. Tesla was born in the Military Frontier of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (per Tesla). Present -day Croatia did not exist when Tesla was born. Telsa spoke several languages. [He was far smarter than you (or me)]. One of them was Serbian, which was his ethnicity. It was spoken the same as present-day Croatian. They were not two separate languages. Paprika is a favorite spice in my household. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. P.S. the octagon -shaped warning is not of my doing.Edison 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tesla was born in Croatian part of Military Frontier and Croatia very much existed....you can observe it in the very title (Austrian Archduke later Emepror was King of Croatia), there was separate ruler for Croatia (Croatian Ban->Viceroy) and there was separate Croatian parliament. All that very much means that - suprise, suprise - it existed!!! Croatian and Serbian were always two separate languages and perhaps you should refer to the articles regarding this matter on this very website to learn some facts. Regards.Afrika Paprika 19:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been many claims on Wikipedia that some dialect of a language is a separate language, as part of nationalist aspirations of residents of some region, who want to be a separate country. The United States were indeed separate and equal states before forming the United States. When the Confederate States sought to dissolve their union with the United States in 1861, very curiously, there was no claim put forward at all that they spoke a separate language, even though anyone could instantly recognize their speech as different from that of a northerner, in accent, in grammar, and in vocabulary. The Southern speaker uses a familiar plural pronoun unused in the north, "Y'all," short for "You all," as in "Do y'all need some help? And "help" would have been pronounced like "hep." Instead of "This farm" they might say "This here farm," pronounced like "Thishear famm." This is likely due to African influences in the Southern speech. Someone from Boston, on the other hand, like President Kennedy, would pronounce "I parked the car on the Harvard yard and went to Africa" as "I pahked the cah on the Hahvahd yahd and went to Afriker." Because of these differences in American speech, it is not a compelling argument for separate languages in other countries when someone says that in a few sentences one can tell whether someone is from one or another region of former Yugoslavia. In a few sentences, one can tell if someone grew up in Chicago or in a suburb of the city, or if they grew up in Brooklyn versus Queens or Manhattan in New York. Regards. Edison 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

English language is not adequate example...it is in fact wrong and flawed. Look at Scandinavian diasystem...that is the real example for Central-South Slavic diasystem (ex-Serbo-Croatian) and educate yourself. Afrika Paprika 19:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from PE

Yes you can be held responsible - that's considered highly deceptive. Not to mention your constant ignorations of blocks and the Wikipedia project as a whole.

I can be held responsible because my IP automatically changes everytime I log on? LOL! Afrika Paprika 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - Greece had no Serb population. Southern Dalmatia received an influx in the first half of the 7th century, where they founded their own states. ALL OR MOST SERBIAN DYNASTIES ARE FROM SOUTHERN DALMATIA (Mrnjavcevic, Nemanjic, Vojislavljevic, Vojinovic, Brankovic, Balsic, Crnojevic, Visevic, etc...) , and scientificly the majority of the Serb populace; whereas none are from Greece (evidently - there were none there). There was no Serbian statehood movement (while there was in southern Dalmatia) and essentially, while southern Dalmatia has throughout the Middle Ages been component of a Serb state one way or another - Greece was conquered in the 14th century and then subsequently lost. I remember that you often criticized my knowledge of history - but how about yours?

Dioclea, Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia although at times closely under control of Serbia are not core Serbian lands nor in fact were they "Serbian lands". You are right - Serbian statehood originated in Southern Dalmatia but in the province of Rascia. You can rant as much as you want those are the facts. Afrika Paprika 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Croatian language's main father was Ljudevit Gaj. Serbian language's main father was Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic - both subsequently joined it into the Serbo-Croat. I do not know what you're complaining.

Croatian language does not have a "father". Tell me this...if Serbian and Croatian were the "same language" why then the need to join them by Gaj and Karadzic?!? Explain to me this paradox? The fact is Croatian and Serbian were two similar but different languages, in 19th century two standard languages were brought even more closer but they were NEVER "the same" and will never be the same. Afrika Paprika 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just citing the Constituion. I did compare it to the Serbian and Montenegrin - which mention no nationality/ethnicity at all, and define the two states CIVIC-STATES - i. e. states of their citizens; whereas Croatia is a nationalist state "NATION-STATE OF THE CROAT PEOPLE". I don't need to read your posts for hundreds of time - you need to read the Constitutions, my friend. ;)

You were referring to the old communist Serbian and Montenegrin constitution. Refer to the new one - if there is anywhere where you can check it from first hand. Check any other consitution of any other country and you will see that there are small differences between the Croatian consitution and these constitutions. It is common pratice in democratic Europe. Croatia is land of Croatian people and all of it's citizens and the constitution is clear as day on this. Afrika Paprika 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You did call Krleza's and Budak's writings propaganda. Since you evidently think that about them, its even more evident what you would think about Ivo Andric, a nobel prize-winner. Krleza was undoubtfully the best modern Croatian writer, by the way - while Andric got a Nobel Prize. --PaxEquilibrium 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some are propaganda indeed, but I never said or called them what you imply...as always you lie and spin my words. Afrika Paprika 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You were editing not logged on, as an annon.

I was defining your rather wrong comparison of southern Dalmatia with Greece - without anything common whatsoever. Rascia might've been at times the place of gathering of the Serb peoples (it became the core of the Serb state in the Late Medieval Ages); however so was Doclea and partly Bosnia before; and Doclea remained the centre afterwards.

I am refering to the current Constitutions of Montenegro and Serbia - why are they "old"? And why are they "Communist"? Additionally, the hypothetical new Constitution of Serbia is that which you say - in its first paragraph State of the Serbian People and all of its citizens; while on the other hand Croatia's constitution clearly states that it's a nationalist-Croat state with minorities. That's it. If it would be anything close to what you claim, than it would be something like the hypothetical proposition for the new Constitution of Serbia - but, it's not.

Where did I lie? I mentioned Krleza (the greatest modern Croatian writer) and Budak and you said that you don't read that propaganda. That's what happenned.

image:Stop_hand.svg Please STOP editing while blocked as an annon. The purpose of a block is a punishment, a penalty that you have to endure because of your violations of Wikipedia's rules. You have to actually pass this block, or what would the block's sence be? You say minor violations - but editing while blocked (which you continously do) is a major no-no. --PaxEquilibrium 20:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would put a note here to set this straight, in case anyone comes across this statement. The purpose of a block is not punishment. See WP:BLOCK. --Philosophus T 09:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You've been blocked indefinitely by User:Pilotguy for your incessant edit warring and sockpuppeting. Any further editing from anonymous accounts will be reverted on sight. -- ChrisO 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Learn

I really hoped that You would learn. --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A deal

Now that Your 8th sockpuppet has been banned, are You finally prepared to take the way of peace (there might yet be salvation for You)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On matters of opinion

Some people believe that what they believe is fact. The debate over the existence of dragons, for example, is a long debate that has gone on for centuries. That is an acceptable case of word-is-fact. However, there are also those facts that exist. Like the ones in the aforementioned article, for example. The point is, in this case, your word is not fact. You cannot simply say "I think this is true, and therefore it is". You have to have positive confirmation that it is fact. Best, --Gp75motorsports 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pagania

Hi. You have edited on talk page in article Pagania about question if population of this state has been Serbs, South Slavs or Croats. After my comments on talk page that there is consensus between editors because result in user comments are 10:1 user in minority has demanded active discussion about this. Because of that all editors on talk page has been invited to write thinking so that this question ulmost 3 years after it is opened can be closed with vote.--Rjecina (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)