Jump to content

Talk:Romanization of Serbian/Archive 1

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

opposition to Cyrillic

Tipkalica (talk · contribs) recently noted several factoids in the article about various forms of opposition to Cyrillic - bans in Bosnia WWI and Croatia and Bosnia in WWII, and protests in Croatia this year. However, it's a bit unclear how that affects the topic of the article - the use of Serbian Latin. We shouldn't stop at that, but instead see whether the use of Latin was affected because of those negative actions towards Cyrillic; leaving this information in as is looks like synthesis, talking points. The article shouldn't advocate for or against the topic, it should just describe it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Following on from this, I've marked several sections of the article as Off Topic. This is because those sections are to do when the use of Cyrillic might have been banned, rather than how the Roman alphabet (latinica) is used to write the Serbian language.

Deficiency in the article

There is a clear deficiency in this article. It only talks about the use of so called "Gaj's Latin alphabet". It does not describe any of the other systems that were used, and still might be used to romanise Serbian. For example, well into the 20th century, a French-inspired romanisation was used eg. the Serb royal family Karađorđević was transliterated as Karageorgevitch. Serbia itself was called Servia, the town of Niš was called Nich etc. There was also a German-inspired romanisation, eg. town of Šabac was Schabatz, and so on. Serbs themselves only started using the so called "Gaj's Latin alphabet" (in reality - the Croatian latin alphabet) after World War 1.

The article clearly describes how Serbo-Croatian is romanized in multiple countries, which is why I changed its title. Yes, it should be expanded to include this information - if we can find sources to back it up. Sol505000 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2021

Remove the WP:TAGBOMBING in the Romanization_of_Serbian#Use_of_romanization section (and, optionally, replace with one tag at the top of the section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. I see that from 15 August 008 until 15 March 2021 the page was at Romanization of Serbian and was then moved to Romanization of Serbo-Croatian. If a discussion had been held here prior to the first move it would have made life easier for admins when seeing an edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Doing that just below. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Romanization of Serbian → Romanization of Serbo-Croatian – As I explained to the (now blocked and confirmed sock) user who had objected and undone the move (diff), their move rationale was invalid. I doubt there'd be any opposition to this WP:BANREVERT, but just in case, given the disputed move was a bold one without prior discussion:

  • The Cyrillic alphabet is used outside of just Serbia AFAICS
  • The language is commonly known in English as "Serbo-Croatian", so this would be the logical and consistent name for any sub-page

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Shouldn't have been moved in the first place—blindlynx (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am opposed to the move, and I believe the first move should have been discussed by the user before he decided to change it to Serbo-Croatian.
  • For one, Serbo-Croatian is an outdated terminology, used to represent the usage of the latin format. This was back in the early 19th century. Fast-forward to today and there is now an official distinction between Serbian and Croatian. Yes, they share the latinized/romanized version, but Serbia officially adopted Cyrillic as its written script, which Croatia has never adopted nor used. In fact, Croatia only has the latinized version as its official written language.
  • The usage of Serbian Cyrillic is also used outside of Serbia, in neighboring countries where Serbs are large in number. In Bosnia & Herzegovina (roughly 1 million inhabitants identify as Serb (mostly in the Republika Srpska entity). In Montenegro (roughly 30% of the population identifies as Serb). In Croatia (roughly 200,000 inhabitants identify as Serb). Although in Croatia, the usage of Serbian Cyrillic has practically been outlawed, due to ethnic tensions and the country officially using the latin version. You will not see many articles of Croatian people, places, and events that ever mention the distinction 'Serbo-Croatian'. They will only write 'Croatian'. That is because gradually throughout time, each language was given its own distinction. Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, etc... These have become their own standardized representations.
  • The article was originally created to show this distinction. It was written to show that the Serbian language is a representation of digraphia, having two official written scripts. The main one being the Serbian Cyrillic script (created by the Serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić, being distinct and different from other forms of cyrillic, therefore termed 'Serbian Cyrillic'). The usage of the title 'Romanization of Serbian' is correct, due to the Serbian language officially adopting Serbian cyrillic as a written language, and the 'Romanization of Serbian' representing the latinized/romanized version, which is also used.
  • The only way I would change 'Romanization of Serbian' is possibly changing it to 'Romanization of Serbian Cyrillic'. If you look at the articles this link is used, it is actually referring to exactly that. But even then I do not see the need. It is fine the way it is. Docholliday11 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this should be merged with Serbian Cyrillic and turned into a general page on Serbian orthography, kind of like Montenegrin alphabet. The idea of romanization of Serbo-Croatian is odd to me, since the language is natively written in the Latin alphabet (as well as Cyrillic and formerly Glagolitic and Arabic). The present title has the same problem. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Bosnian and Montenegrin officially use Cyrillic as well, it makes more sense to move (back) and expand this article than to have separate ones with basically the same information—blindlynx (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is right to group Serbian Cyrillic (which was created by a Serbian linguist in the early 19th century specifically as a reform of the Serbian language, and the official written language of Serbia) and the broader term of Cyrillic( which encompasses many different variants). They are not interchangeable. Docholliday11 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I personally think that it should have never been changed in the first place. Someone decided to change it only recently and did so without discussion. If you look at what articles it is linked to, it is trying to specifically explain the Romanization/Latinization of the Serbian Cyrillic script officially used in Serbia. I agree with the idea that the romanization of Serbo-Croatian is odd, being natively written in the Latin alphabet. Why can't it just be left the way it is?Docholliday11 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also if you read the article in full, you will see it specifically referring to the Serbian population, including Serbian place names, personal names, how Serbian road signs are represented etc... The article itself was created to represent the written usage of latinized/romanized Serbian. And since Serbian (Serbian language) is its own standardized variety of Serbo-Croatian, I really don't see the problem with it being used as such, especially given the context of the article itself. Docholliday11 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    The alphabet in question seems to be used outside of Serbia (see Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Official_use), by populations who speak other dialects of Serbo-Croatian. A single article covering the subject of digraphism in this language (which does not appear to be uniquely confined to one national variant) would likely be the best option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Serbian Cyrillic is its own specific variant. The reason it is used in those neighboring countries is because of those inhabitants that identify as Serb. In Bosnia & Herzegovina (roughly 1 million inhabitants identify as Serb (mostly in the Republika Srpska entity). In Montenegro (roughly 30% of the population identifies as Serb). In Croatia (roughly 200,000 inhabitants identify as Serb). Those are some of the statistics. But that is not in question here. What are you proposing to be done?, because I'm not sure I fully understand what it is that you want to do with this page. Also, how do we get this discussion posted on the Serbian WikiProject page? I checked and it's not listed under 'requested moves'. I feel like we need much more input from other users before making any changes.Docholliday11 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I found this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Cyrillic, where other languages are represented similarly to this article in its present state. There you have Romanization of Bulgarian, Russian, Ukranian etc (other Cyrillic variants)... I feel that this article should be treated the same as those, considering Serbian is its own standardized language. See Serbian language. If someone wishes to create a 'Romanization of __________' to add to that group that is fine, but I'm not sure why this page is being questioned with changes, given the specificity of its context. Docholliday11 (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, stay with stable title - we have two articles Serbian language and Croatian language, romanization only applies to the first, since Croatian is in Latin letters anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Docholiday11. I was about to propose Romanization of Serbian Cyrillic to match the main article Serbian Cyrillic, but the article deals mainly with the situation in Serbia and its digraphia. The proposed title would be a misnomer. No such user (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romanization_of_Serbian/Archive_1&oldid=1251003363"