Jump to content

Talk:Central Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Uža or Centralna (Central or Proper)

Just for the record if you type

Google search
Uza Srbija1,500 results
Centralna Srbija6,480 results
Central Serbia1,260,000 results
Serbia proper110,000 results

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

This article was not written to discuss the geographic region of "Central Serbia" - it was written to discuss the English-language term "Serbia proper". Moving it to "Central Serbia" defeats the point. It's going back where it came from. -- ChrisO 18:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

That search doesn't actually prove the point you are trying to make, since you omitted the quote marks around the terms. This results in there being far more hits than Central Serbia than there should be - it is merely finding all pages with the word 'Central' on them, and the word 'Serbia' on them, not the term 'Central Serbia'.

Here is a real table, conducted using valid searches

"Uza Srbija" 602
"Central Serbia" 6,790
"Serbia Proper" 9,710
"Centralna Srbija" 721

Ooh, look which one won. Morwen 18:23, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Centralna-721

Uza-602

??There are much less pages on Serbian than English. Avala 12:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Remember this is the English wikipedia, not the Serbian one. Morwen 14:20, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

yes it is

Avala 13:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved from talk: Serbia

I see I missed most of this discussion, but it's never to late to try to shed some light on it. In socalist Yugoslavia, the area that we're trying to find an name for was known as uža Srbija (literally "narrow Serbia"). It was usually translated into English as "Serbia proper". The word "uža" in this contest could also be translated as "inner" or "central".

The term itself, which was originally considered neutral, has come into disrepute in Serbia, because it was perceived to somehow imply that the provinces are not properly Serbia.

I'll try to provide some background - through times, the name "Serbia" had several different meanings, some of which are still evident in the present usage.

The medieval core of the Serbian state was in Raška, SW Serbia and Kosovo. Those parts (especially Raška) are known as Stara Srbija or "Old Serbia".

During the ottoman rule, Serbia was considered to include the ottoman regions where Serbs lived, which would in those days include Kosovo, parts of Bosnia and Montenegro. In this frame of reference, the statement "Kosovo has always been a part of Serbia" makes sense. This sense was revived in the 1990's: I met a Serb from Doboj in Bosnia, who claimed that he was from Serbia. That is, of course, a very politically loaded statement.

When Serbia became independent again, the name Serbia got a new definition, meaning the Serbia of 1878 - no Kosovo, no Vojvodina. This is still widely felt in the usage today: Srbijanac ("Serbian" as opposed to "Serb", cf. Bosanac ("Bosnian") and Bošnjak ("Bosniac")) does not include Serbs from Bosnia, Croatia, Vojvodina or Kosovo. This makes the translation "Serbia proper" sound reasonable.

Later, Serbia grew larger and included Macedonia, which was known at the time as "Southern Serbia". Nationalists still like to refer to Macedonians as "Southern Serbs" (note, Južni Srbi - "Southern Serbs", not Južni Srbijanci - "Southern Serbians").

So what to do?

  • "Narrower Serbia" sounds horrible
  • "Central Serbia" is out of the question, because it already means something: the central region of Serbia, much smaller than Serbia minus provinces.
  • "Serbia proper" sounds reasonable to me (especially with its history of usage), but I can see the point of people who oppose it.
  • "Inner Serbia" could sound OK, but lacks precedents.

Should all of this be explained in the article? Zocky 21:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that central serbia is the best. It is the term used today, it tells you in the moment where is it located(in central part between other provinces(Kosovo, Vojvodina). Inner Serbia sounds OK really but it is not much different from "central" except it doesnt say where is it located. The other thing is that nobody uses that term. Avala 19:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Look, "central Serbia" ("centralna Srbija") simply means something else. My father's family is from Loznica which is in "uža Srbija", but it's also in western Serbia ("zapadna Srbija") and thus not in "centralna Srbija".
"Serbia proper" is just the common English name for "uža Srbija", even if it can be read to have negative connotations. I mean, should the French to stop using the name fr:Allemagne because it can be read to imply that Germany has rightful claim only to the land originally settled by the Alemanni? Zocky 23:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I am confused. Western Serbia is part of Central Serbia, right? Also North(Sumadija), East and South. Central is not side of the world. But we can call it Central Serbia Proper. Huh it sounds a little bit stupid to me but I think it is OK. Avala 12:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, Western Serbia is not a part of Central Serbia, just as Western Europe is not a part of Central Europe. Zocky 17:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zocky 17:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zapadni deo centralnog dela zemlje. Na to sam mislio.

Merge two articles

Now, we ended up with two articles talking about the same thing –: Central Serbia and Serbia proper, and which should really be merged. Personally, I support Serbia proper because I don't find it politically incorrect, but we should discuss about it. The current solution is not appropriate though – it should be either one or another, but not both. Duja 09:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There was discussion about this already. Article "Central Serbia" is about this region, while article "Serbia proper" is about use of the name "Serbia proper" in English language, not about region. PANONIAN (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Second thing: if you still want to merge these two articles into one, then article "Serbia proper" should be merged into "Central Serbia". Central Serbia is the current official name of this region, while name "Serbia proper" is only a wrong English translation of the former name for this region "Uža Srbija". The correct English translation of this name would be "Narrow Serbia", not "Serbia proper". If some people were stupid to translate this name incorrect that does not mean that we should to use this name as a name of article about this region. By the way, name "Uža Srbija" was used during the time of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but it is not used any more. If we use this name or its wrong English translation for the article, that would be the same if we use name "Yugoslavia" for present day "Serbia-Montenegro". PANONIAN (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

So, Serbia proper would be only a former name of this region, thus I do not see why it should not have its own separate article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did read the previous discussion, but did not come to the same conclusions as you.
  • Where is "Central Serbia" "current official name of this region"? AFAIK nowhere. The region AFAIK does not even have a "current official name".
  • "Serbia proper" is pretty established phrase in English, also used for other places with similar situations, to distinguish the core state from exclaves and autonomies (e.g. "Russia proper"). The "correct translation" is not "Narrow serbia" – that is a literal translation and we don't translate word-for-word, don't we? AHD gives the following definitions for "proper":
4.a. Belonging to one; own. b. Characteristically belonging to the being or thing in question; peculiar. 5. Being within the strictly limited sense, as of a term designating something...8. Worthy of the name; true.
  • I also disagree that "Serbia proper" is a "former name of this region". This region never had an official name, and the term "Serbia proper" is still in use in English. The region has the same political status for 60 years, and "uža Srbija" is still used occasionally (although indeed less than before, for its perceived offensiveness). We should talk English here though.
I (and I think most people) would always parse the phrase "Central Serbia" as denoting mostly Šumadija, to distinguish it from western Serbia (Loznica), southern Serbia (Vranje) etc. I apprehend that "Serbia proper" can sound politically incorrect to some people, as it's parsable as "true Serbia", and I don't insist on it (although I don't agree with that ressentiment). But having the separate on article "Serbia proper" just to discuss political (in)correctness of the term is IMO silly. Duja 08:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in official publications of the Serbian government this region is called "Centralna Srbija". So, it is a kind of official use of this name. In the past (during the existence of SFRY), the name "Uža Srbija" was used officially like this. English term "Serbia proper" is a English translation of the name "Uža Srbija", and it simply does not reflect the fact that usage of this name was changed in Serbia. Wikipedia certainly should to respect such change. Also, this google search could show that name "Central Serbia" is quite used in English:

PANONIAN (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Forked article not an option

Contrary to Panonian, I see nothing "settled" on this talk page, and furthermore, I suggest it's clearly not sustainable to have two articles on exactly the same topic, just to uphold one or other set of objections to terminology: see WP:FORK. I don't much mind which way 'round the merge happens, but merged they surely must be: please don't remove the tags again until this is settled one way or another. (Use "mergedisputed", if you must.) Alai 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

These ARE NOT two articles about same topic. One of these articles is about the region and another is about use of the name "Serbia proper" in English. But what ever, if you want to merge them, then you merge "Serbia proper" into "Central Serbia" but not otherwise. I will not accept POV and incorrect name "Serbia proper" as a name of the article about that region. PANONIAN (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the "modest" content of both articles, it's far from clear that they're scoped in the way you claim (much less that they should be), and certainly not that there's in any way enough distinct material to justify both. Panonian, your opinion on what the title of the merged article is noted, but statements of what you "will not accept" are not in the least helpful. Alai 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, on this whole "official name" thing: please see WP:NC(CN). Alai 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that name "Serbia Proper" is insulting for the inhabitants of Serbia who do not live in that region. I do not think that we should to use names which insult people. When I said that I will not accept it, it is because it insult me. You or somebody else may want to have this name for the article, but I have right to fight (through legal ways) to change it, of course. PANONIAN (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to push the merging issue above (read: I gave up), but I agree with Alai. To Panonian: I still fail to see why is the term "Serbia proper" "insulting for the inhabitants of Serbia who do not live in that region". I see it as projecting of term "uža Srbija" (which some find insulting indeed, which sentiment I attribute to the era of Milošević's raise) into English. It has little to do, though, with how English speakers call the land. (I don't know, I'm asking). Duja 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that English name "Serbia Proper" is nothing else but a translation of the former Serbian name "Uža Srbija". And since you agree that name "Uža Srbija" is insulting for some, I do not have to explain why "Serbia Proper" is insulting too. "Serbia Proper" is a translation of one old Serbian name that is no longer in use because some found it insulting. Since the name was changed because of that, the English language should also to reflect such change. The name of "Yugoslavia" was also changed into "Serbia and Montenegro", and we do not use name Yugoslavia in English any more. Another examples are whether we will use in English name "Gypsy" for Roma people or name "Macedonian Slavs" for Macedonians. Both names, "Gypsy" and "Macedonian Slavs" are insulting, no matter how often they are used in English. "Serbia Proper" is a same thing. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't convince me that it's a translation -- you can Google "Russia proper", and find a quite similar situation to Serbian at China proper. It even says that "China proper" is a controversial concept and There is no direct translation for the term China proper in the Chinese language -- yet the article stands at "China proper". Second, even if some people find the term "Serbia proper" offensive, "Central Serbia" is even more inadequate. How do you call it in Serbian? Would you say that Vranje je grad u centralnoj Srbiji and not expect a strange look from the converser? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored states that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." If the traditionally used English term for the area is "Serbia proper", so be it. Duja 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "Serbia proper" being a translation of the term "Central Serbia" in Serbian. As far as I understand it, it seems to be a legacy of the period before 1912 when Serbia didn't yet rule Kosovo, Vojvodina or what's now Macedonia. Serbia at this time was (not exactly but close enough) confined to the geographical region that we now know as "Central Serbia". There is certainly an implication in the English usage that Kosovo and Vojvodina are additions to Serbia, rather than being an integral part of the country. I understand that some Serbians may find this offensive, but obviously I'm not responsible for how the term has been used! -- ChrisO 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Aargh, you're now adding to the confusion :-). Panonian's statement was that the "Serbia proper" was translation of "uža Srbija" (lit. "narrower Serbia"), which I disagree with. As far as I know, "uža Srbija" itself was coined in SFRY, but the term went into disfavor when Serbs turned against 1974 federal constitution, which gave too much rights to the provinces.
Now, my point was that the term "Central Serbia"/"centralna Srbija", at least in Serbian language, does not denote the subject of the article, but rather Šumadija. I'm not 100% sure for English though. However, "uža Srbija" is not replaced with anything, and is still colloquially used Google. News and media often use "unutrašnjost" (inland) or just "Srbija", disambiguated by the context. If an average English speaker can deduce what "Central Serbia" is about without looking at the context, I'll be satisfied and shut up. Duja 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did said that term "Serbia Proper" is a translation of "Uža Srbija". And here is proof: name "Uža Srbija" was never used before 1945 when Serbia with two autonomous provinces was created. This term was invented to designate part of Serbia that lie outside of the autonomous provinces. This name ("Uža Srbija") was used between 1945 and 1990, when it was replaced with term "Centralna Srbija". The English name "Serbia Proper" also could not to exist before 1945 because before this year, the region that could be designated with that name simply did not existed. So, it is quite obvious that "Serbia proper" is a English translation of the term "Uža Srbija" (or if not a pure translation, then at least English version of this name). Also, these terms "Russia proper" or "China Proper" are names of the groups of regions, not quite similar cases with "Serbia Proper". The important thing is that both names "Central Serbia" and "Serbia Proper" are used in English, so we simply discuss which of the two established English names we will use. But my point is, that who ever invented this term "Serbia Proper", he certainly had in front of him a map of Serbia from 1945 with three marked regions on it: "Vojvodina", "Kosovo" and "Uža Srbija". He obviously thought that name "Uža Srbija" could be best written in English as "Serbia Proper". We must ask this question: what would be if the name "Centralna Srbija" was used for that region from the beginning and if our English translator had another map with name "Centralna Srbija" written instead of "Uža Srbija"? Would he then also translate this as "Serbia Proper" or as "Central Serbia"?. As for the question about Vranje, yes it is in Central Serbia, check any government publication about this, for example this one:

The fact that from the geographical point of view, Vranje is in the south of Serbia is a different question. I think that most accurate definition of this is that Vranje is located in the southern part of Central Serbia. Also, if the traditionally used English term for the area is "Serbia Proper" that does not mean that we should to use it because term "Central Serbia" is also term established in English in the recent years. Should we also to use another traditional English names, like to use name Rodezia for Zimbabwe?

Also, by all means "Serbia Proper" is not legacy of the period before 1912, but of the period after 1945, no matter that borders of Serbia before 1912 were similar to the borders of present-day region because before 1912 that area was known simply as "Serbia", not as "Serbia Proper", "Central Serbia", etc. It is correct that Vojvodina and Kosovo were additions to Serbia in 1945 and that is why Serbian name "Uža Serbia" (similar as English "Serbia Proper") was used for the region, but after 55 years (in about 1990), some people came to understand that term "Uža Srbija" reflect only the situation from 1945, but not the current one, so the term was replaced with "Centralna Srbija". As for Šumadija region, it is the Central part of Central Serbia, but it is not Central Serbia. Term "Uža Srbija" is not used any more in the Serbian government publications, it might be still used unofficially by certain individuals, but I simply saying what is official and what is not. Here is the example: Maybe you would like to call the language you speak by some other name, but there is official name of that language used by the government, same thing with the name of the region. Also, English readers would easily know what "Central Serbia" is since they can to see that on the map posted in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again: wikipedia practice and guidelines are to use the common name (in English). Not to use the official name, or a name they can "easily know" what it is after looking at a map, or anything but the common name. Googling for the two gives a roughly equal number of hits, though it's clear that many references to "Central Serbia" (or indeed simply to "central Serbia") are in the sense that Duja suggests, not in the sense of this article. It would be preferable to have some information on what "reputable sources" (national and international organisations, news outlets, etc) use. Alai 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, try also to see how many google hits you will find for "Gypsies" and "Roma people" key words. No matter how many google links are there, it would not be appropriate to name Wikipedia article about this ethnic group "Gypsies". I do not think that google hits are something on which we should base our naming policy. By the way, what about these google links for "Serbia Proper", which say: "that the proper approach to Serbia is to..." :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree on several points, but I don't consider the matter so important to be pushed to death; we wasted too much energy to this discussion. We both made our points, and let's agree that we disagree. Not a big deal in any case. Regards, Duja 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist flogging the issue further:

Territories considered to be outside "Serbia proper" are Kosovo and Vojvodina. Within the Serbia it is generally accepted that those territories are just as much a part of Serbia as any other part of the country in every way. As a result, the concept of "Serbia proper" is seen as obsolete and redundant, if not downright offensive, as it implies that some of Serbia's territory is not as "proper", which can be used to justify separatism, a generally reviled idea. On the other hand, proponents of Kosovo, or Vojvodina separatism would support such a distinction, as they want to make clear the difference between the concept of "Serbia proper" and "Serbia", merely a political entity.

I assume you would agree with most of the statement above. You know what? I copied it from China proper word by word, then just replaced names. Duja 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to address Alai's point about "Serbia proper" dating to after 1945, not so; I've just done a quick search of an electronic database of the London Times and have found uses of this term dating back to 1915, e.g. "Serbia Proper Occupied", an editorial of 1916 about how the inhabitants of Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia etc. yearn for "union with Serbia proper" (how times change!) etc. So clearly the term has a long usage in English. I'd guess that it was in use well before 1915, as the Times' writers evidently thought their readers would know what it meant. I don't have time to research this properly now - I'm actually on holiday at the moment - but I'll look into it when I get back home. -- ChrisO 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Panonian's point, as I didn't make such a claim. Note, however, that what was meant by "Serbia proper" was very likely to be significantly different, as were the borders of the then kingdom of Serbia. (Not to mention there being the small matter of a war on at the time, or indeed previous principalities, voidvodships, and what not prior to that.) Alai 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that term "Serbia Proper" could be used as early as 1915, but in that time that name was obviously used for this region:

That have nothing to do with the region about which our article is. But here is the real question: should we then restore separate "Serbia Proper" article and wrote there about usage of this name from 1915 to the present-day as a name of different regions during the history? PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that Kosovo is part of Serbia. No Serbian Police potrol the streets, no Serbian judges execute the law, no serbvian sborder police protect its borders, and no Serbian soldiers proptect it. Most importantly, no Serbian government governs and no Serbian parliments passes laws that aply in Kosovo.

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shorty find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 2031, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong! There are more countries that recognises Kosovo as a part of Serbia than these one that recognises the independence of Kosovo! And there are also a lot of territories within Kosovo that are not under control of the government in Pristina, so you can't say that Kosovo is a legal and independent country like Germany, Serbia or the USA. There are a lot of countries worldwide that have lost control over parts of their land (for example Somalia, Georgia, Cyprus)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.137.213 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

While I am a supporter of Kosovar independence, NPOV requires me to mention that Serbia still sees Kosovo as part of its territory and that this should be reflected here.Khajidha (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. My 21 April compromise with dual maps was intended for that end. I see now that the map without Kosovo was removed on 7 May by Zvonko, who gave no reason for it, and then, contrary to my intentions, the POV edit war started again. I think it should be obvious to anyone that there are two sides to this coin and somehow (not necessarily through my method, as I even pointed out in my edit summary) we must avoid choosing one side or the other. -- Jao (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a version of the first map WITH Kosovo?Khajidha (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Serbia01.png. -- Jao (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo again

User:Poecilia Reticulata has twice changed the map of Serbia to one that does not include Kosovo. While I am supportive of Kosovo's independence, the fact remains that in Serbia Kosovo is considered to be a region of Serbia. Therefore, it seems that maps of Serbia should include Kosovo with notice being given in the article that Kosovo considers itself independent of Serbia. Is there consensus here one way or the other? Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PS -- I would also suggest that the inverse procedure be used in maps of Kosovo (ie: NOT showing it within Serbia, but mentioning the conflict). Purely historical articles could show whatever existed at the time in question. Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

flag

Does central Serbia have a flag? (LAz17 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).

No, it never had a flag. PANONIAN 09:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this region still exist?

Well, Central Serbia never had its own government or any other local institutions and it functioned rather like an statistical region. For example, 2002 census results published by the Statistical Office of Serbia are listing population for Central Serbia. However, first results of 2011 census (which could be seen here) are not listing Central Serbia at all. Instead, this publication is listing 3 newly formed Statistical regions of Serbia: Region of Belgrade, Region of Šumadija and Western Serbia, and Region of South and East Serbia. So, it seems that Central Serbia officially does not exist any more. Anyway, this should be clarified by further evidences, and if that is truth, then this should be transformed into an historical article. PANONIAN 09:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed article in accordance with new reality. I think that presented official statistical publication is a clear evidence that Central Serbia officially no longer exist. If it still exists, new statistical regions would be listed in that publication as parts of Central Serbia. However, they are listed instead Central Serbia (which is not mentioned at all in that publication). Note that in previous statistical publications of that kind, Central Serbia was listed together with Vojvodina and Kosovo. In this last publication, we have Vojvodina and Kosovo, but instead Central Serbia, we have 3 new regions. PANONIAN 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Central, Narrow, or Serbia Proper is a geopolitical and cultural reference to the region in that part of Serbia, much like the Balkans are for Southeastern Europe. It cannot simply cease to exist as it is part of Serbian nomenclature. The statistical regions are an entirely different matter, purely administrative for the purpose of (as the name suggests) gathering statistical data. Buttons (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Central Serbia was too used as administrative term in official publications from 1945 to 2009 (and it was too nothing more than a statistical region). In recent publications, it is not used any more and it is replaced with 3 new statistical regions, see: http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2011/prvi_rezultati.pdf Also, do you have some source or evidence that can support claim that it is still used as "geopolitical and cultural reference to the region"? PANONIAN 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is an official source that confirms that Central Serbia does not exist any more (web page of the Government of Serbia):

Quotation:

Republika Srbija je administrativno-teritorijalno podeljena na pokrajine, regione, upravne oblasti, Grad Beograd, gradove i na opštine.

Teritorijalnu organizaciju Republike Srbije čini pet regiona (Beogradski region, Region Vojvodine, Region Šumadije i zapadne Srbije, Region južne i istočne Srbije i Region Kosovo i Metohija). Oni obuhvataju Grad Beograd kao posebnu teritorijalnu jedinicu utvrđenu Ustavom i zakonom i 29 upravnih oblasti, 23 grada, 28 gradskih opština, 150 opština, 6.158 naselja i 195 gradskih naselja.

U sastavu Republike Srbije su AP Vojvodina i AP Kosovo i Metohija kao oblici teritorijalne autonomije.


English translation:

Republic of Serbia is administratively-territorially divided into provinces, regions, administrative oblasts, city of Belgrade, cities and municipalities.

Territorial organization of the Republic of Serbia is composed of 5 regions (Belgrade, Vojvodina, Šumadija and Western Serbia, Southern and Eastern Serbia, Kosovo and Metohija). They include the city of Belgrade, which is a special territorial unit, defined by the constitution and law, and 29 administrative oblasts, 23 cities, 28 city municipalities, 150 municipalities, 6,158 settlements and 195 urban settlements.

Within the Republic of Serbia, there are AP Vojvodina and AP Kosovo and Metohija, as forms of territorial autonomy.

PANONIAN 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Central Serbia still exists, and is fine and well. Everybody calls it "central Serbia", on the news and in the weather forecast, and knows what it is. It has never been a subdivision, so it does not need this awful "Infobox former subdivision". Just like, for example, Mačva still exists, although it has never been an official division of anything.
Yes, Central Serbia used to be a statistical region, and now it is not. However, this is duly mentioned in the article, and is hardly relevant for existence. Barely anybody know what those statistical regions are used for, let alone where their borders lie, and they should not be used to define more than they are created for: bare statistical borders used by the Census Bureau. No such user (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No such user, I do not agree with your last changes here. Do you have any source that says that Central Serbia officially still exist? What you mean by "Everybody calls it central Serbia"? Who is everybody? Please say who exactly call it like that and where. I presented sources which are clearly showing that official state institutions do not using this name any more. If some people still use this name somewhere it is only because they do not know about recent administrative changes. You agreed that "Central Serbia used to be a statistical region, and now it is not" and it is all what it was. It was statistical region whose name was used in former government publications and today it is nothing. It does not exist. If you claim that it still exist then please provide reliable sources that saying that. You also removed references that clearly showed that government of Serbia do not use name Central Serbia in its official publications any more and that there are now officially 3 statistical regions instead. Can you please present sources that support your view? As for infobox, I think that article about former statistical region should have infobox, but I can live without it. PANONIAN 13:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
As for Mačva example, that case is not even similar. Mačva, Šumadija, Banat and other historical/geographical regions are exactly that: historical/geographical regions with no political implications. Contrary to this, Central Serbia was fully political issue - it described political division of Serbia during one period in history and nothing else. It is not (and was not) geographical, historical or "natural" region of any kind. Valid and reliable sources should be presented for any opposite claim. PANONIAN 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You started from the premise that something has to be declared in official sources in order to exist. I question that premise. Going back to a 2008 version of this article, it defines the subject as "Central Serbia [...], is the region of Serbia that lies outside the autonomous province of Vojvodina and Kosovo. The region of Central Serbia is not an administrative division of Serbia as such; it is under the direct jurisdiction of the republic authorities. " So if something has never been an administrative division of Serbia, how did it cease to exist? In my view, looking at this entity solely from the viewpoint of legal framework is wrong. It probably was used by the Statistical Office, and now they use the statistical regions, but that is really a minor use of the term, that is largely unknown to the general public. I would further agree that the Statistical regions of Serbia are unknown for the general public and, while they should have an article, they should not get a prominent place in Wikipedia because they are even more (at least now) obscure term. I would bet my money that 90% of residents of central Serbia would not know which statistical region they live in.
On the other hand, usage of the term "Central Serbia" to refer to the subject of this article -- a geographical area of convenience, with clear borders but not government of any kind, is still present in the media and in the popular perception. This grouping is also used for various organizations, to define their area of interest. So we have it referred to in Ombudsman's site [1], mentioned by the Minister of defense, used for reporting of elections, and on weather forecast [2][3]. We also have various sporting organizations [4], [5], [6], [7].
The bottom line: Central Serbia is a concept, much more than an administrative area. It is wrong to talk about the concept which still exist in past tense. See also Buttons's point, above. No such user (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was not administrative division, but it was statistical region, so it ceded to exist as an statistical region. The sole purpose of usage of term "Central Serbia" by state authorities was political and statistical. After 3 new statistical regions were introduced, political and statistical purpose of Central Serbia fully disappeared. I can agree that usage of term "Central Serbia" is still present in some media and in the popular perception, but is this valid source on which an Wikipedia article should be based? You said by yourself that new Statistical regions of Serbia are "unknown for the general public" and it is the obvious reason why term is still present in some media. Official sources are certainly more valuable for Wikipedia than "popular perception". In another words, Wikipedia articles should be based on official sources, in which case this article should speak about official statistical region named Central Serbia which ceased to exist in 2009. We can say in some part of this article that term is still used in some media, but that is all. We should not say that this region still exist only because its name is still used in some media (and little example from history: ancient and medieval authors used names of some ancient lands long after these lands ceded to exist). Regarding sources that you mentioned, there is logical explanation why term is used in each of them. For example, this source which speaks about "ethnic structure of Central Serbia" obviously used data from 2002 census, where results were listed for Central Serbia. Results of new 2011 census will list 3 new regions instead and therefore, this source would be different. This source is published in 2010 when new statistical regions were just formed, etc, etc. Also, sporting organizations, weather forecast and election result reports are not really reliable sources. I can agree that statement of minister Vučić is valid source, but it is questionable whether minister here described official position of the state or demonstrated that "the Statistical regions of Serbia that are unknown for the general public" are unknown for him as well. I think that official site of government of Serbia about territorial organization of the country should be primary source here: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=45625 All other sources should be evaluated only in this light. PANONIAN 18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Speaking about past tense, I do not see that this sentence is wrong in any way: "was a name officially used for part of Serbia before 2009." Sentence refer to official usage of this term in past tense and do not say that term is not still used in some media or unofficially. We can upgrade this with data about current unofficial usage, of course. PANONIAN 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
One more thing: the proof that state of Serbia does not officially recognize existence of Central Serbia is this primary statistical division north-south: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Датотека:NUTS1.PNG (In this division, the city of Belgrade, which was formerly part of Central Serbia is now statistically joined with Vojvodina and not with two other statistical regions that were formed from Central Serbia). PANONIAN 18:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly reject the notion that something has to be defined in official sources in order to exist. Not only the official sources are the source of truth or source of Wikipedia.
However, I think our dispute could be resolved by somewhat rescoping this article to revolve around terminology, i.e. to describe how terms 'Central Serbia' and 'Serbia proper' come into being and what they (used to) denote. Compare e.g. Macedonia (terminology).
I think that would lead to shortening of the article down to 'Name' and 'History' sections, because all other sections (administrative divisions, geography, cities) are already well-covered in other articles. What do you say? No such user (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But Central Serbia was official territorial unit of Serbia before 2009, so it was defined as such in official sources. We should have an article about this former official territory and that article should include all aspects of that territory - districts, cities, ethnic groups, etc. So, I think that we should rather write another article that will deal specifically with terminology and we should keep this article as an article about historical territorial unit of Serbia. Or we can simply add new section to this article where terminology will be described. However, I must express concern that all post-2010 sources that mention term Central Serbia are most likely doing that because authors of these sources are not aware that Central Serbia was replaced with 3 new statistical regions. PANONIAN 06:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Just how "official" it was? Please make up your mind. It was just used as a statistical category for census, and it does not have any sort of government of its own. Even if you want to treat it as a former country subdivision (which, again, it simply wasn't), we already have all that information in Geography of Serbia, List of cities in Serbia, Administrative divisions of Serbia, Regions of Serbia, History of Serbia, why keep it duplicated? We generally provide geographic and economy information only in the main (=modern) articles for the territory, and mention just as much history as the period covers. I really do not share your attitude towards "officialdom", and especially that it is particularly relevant for Wikipedia. And writing yet another article on this topic is a huge overkill.
Just as you argued on the Talk:Nedić's Serbia that the notion of "Serbia" did not cease to exist just because Kingdom of Yugoslavia changed its administrative division, excluding a territory named "Serbia", please be consistent and apply the same reasoning to Central Serbia: it is a well-defined, unofficial territory, still called that because of practical and traditional reasons. Rest assured that people will not start talking about "Central Serbia" anytime soon, just because some law on territorial organization said otherwise. No such user (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss issues from my topic ban, so let focus on Central Serbia issue only. I do not agree that issue is covered well in other articles. It is partly covered in those articles, but do you suggest that readers should read some 5 articles to get the full picture about this? I do not see what is wrong to have this article that will fully cover all things related to Central Serbia. Yes, it was a former subdivision of Serbia and it is really not important did it had its own government or not. I mean, what is a problem to have article about Central Serbia as about former territorial division? Speaking about current usage of this term: no, it is not "still called like that because of practical and traditional reasons" - name is used today only because of stupidity of people who use it and who do not know about recent administrative changes. And there is nothing "practical and traditional" in it, but my topic ban do not allow me to speak about reasons for creation of this entity. However, I personally think that new territorial division of Serbia is much better and less politically controversial and we do not have to bring Central Serbia back from history just because some people do not know about recent territorial changes and are not able to see dubious political nature of former territorial structure. PANONIAN 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

no source given to support name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. show this source here. HuHu22 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Provinces

Why does the lede call Kosovo an "autonomous province"? This is fantasy; Kosovo declared independence several years ago. If the article is meant to reflect Belgrade's POV rather than reality, perhaps we could manage that in some way, but we need to frame it more carefully instead of presenting it as fact. bobrayner (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Officially by Serbian constitution, Kosovo is autonomous province of Serbia. That's fact. Get over it. We have Kosovo-note, and that's it. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
To the extent that the Serbian constitution departs from reality, our articles should diverge from what the Serbian constitution says.
But, even if we take a constitutional argument, you still fail. Presumably you know that the constitution of 1903 required a Grand National Assembly before adding territory like Kosovo into Serbia; but no such assembly was ever held. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia should not "fix" what your deep POV think is an error, but only follow fact. Fact is that Kosovo is part of Serbia per Serbian constitution. That may be (and it is) disputed, but its still the fact that must not be ignored. Same for this. This is district of Serbia, and not RoK. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Kosovo declared independence in 2008. You know that; I know that; countless reliable sources say so; our articles should reflect that fact. Just look at the Chinese constitution; as far as that document is concerned, Taiwan is still part of China - but we don't change Taiwan articles on that basis. The constitution of Libya insisted that it was a democracy and that the people were free and sovereign. To the extent that the Serbian constitution departs from reality, our articles should diverge from what the Serbian constitution says. bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you have anything better to do, Bob, or are you just out to push Pristina's agenda? 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm just here to ensure that articles reflect what sources say; unfortunately your edits seem to do the contrary. Perhaps we should have an RfC over whether this article should pretend that Kosovo is part of Serbia? I think we all know what would happen when independent editors get involved; the question is whether you stop reverting before or after that point. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we have to make a mountain out of every molehill?
First, "Central Serbia" as described in the article is not just a vaguely defined "central region", but clearly delineated part of the country, bordering Kosovo and Vojvodina, and having such borders since 1945. Second, since the article describes an entity which belongs to internal organization of Serbia, and Kosovo is only peripheral, it is logical to refer to Kosovo as a "province" in a single word, since it undoubtedly so was from 1945 to 1999. Third, since Kosovo proclaimed independence in 2008, that should be duly noted, and does not even have to be referenced -- it's a fairly widely known thing, isn't it? No such user (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, No such user. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Central Serbia as opposed to core territories of early modern period 1804-1918

What needs to be remembered here is that Central Serbia exists as it does as a result of being carved into that shape rather than ever having been created purposely. For example, in the south it borders Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia, all of these are post-World War II creations if looking at their current shapes. In the north it borders Vojvodina. Vojvodina is not entirely the land that the Kingdom of Serbia acquired in late 1918 before joining the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes because Vojvodina only constitutes the bulk of Serbian Panonia which is outside of Belgrade's municipalities. In other words, Zemun, Novi Beograd, Surčin (where the airport is), the section of Palilula left of the Danube are all Central Serbia but were only as much a part of the "core" as the rest of the territory left of Sava and Danube (Vojvodina). --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the case with pretty much any territory that is not defined solely by natural boundaries: its geographical extents today are almost certainly different than the ones of 100, 200 or 500 years ago. Arguing that it's now not the same territory in the lead, which is supposed to give a broad overview, is unnecessary nitpicking.
Thus, I disagree that extents of Central Serbia are substantially larger than those of Principality of Serbia to prevent the practical identification, but I won't insist on the previous formulation; still, the current wording "Central Serbia contains the core..." leaves a lot to be desired. No such user (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
A pair of pictures is worth two thousand words: No such user (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Principality of Serbia (1878)
Central Serbia (2015)
My apologies NSU, I forgot about this discussion because I didn't add it to my watchlist. Well I am all in favour of rephrasing "contains the core" if you feel it leaves much to be desired. I think the key issue here is that what Serbia was in 1804 (non-existent) and what it became in 1918 are two very different things. The early years were marked by developments, revolts, autonomy, soon expanding and becoming de facto independence, eventually recognised and by 1918 just before the point it united with the first Yugoslav state, Serbia had reached its peak. At no time since 1918 has any entity calling itself "Serbia" been more than it was in December 1918 when it temporarily had a coast due to its taking of Montenegro. So the section may need to be expanded, or broken into bits. I just don't know what best to suggest, but I am all in favour of a change. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1247124115"