Talk:Constitution of Serbia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Uhh... why is this Constitution being compared to the one from 1974? --PaxEquilibrium --PaxEquilibrium 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the 1974 constitution offer secession only to the republics, not any sub-national entities? Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 09:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - and the 1990 Constitution was inbetweens this one. --PaxEquilibrium 10:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If we say, "Kosovo should/could not join Serbia" I believe a statement is being made that should not feature in an encyclopedia. It gives the appearance that the editor is playing the international lawyer. The book Kosovo: A Short History is indeed written by a historian but there are still limits on what kind of information can be used from such sources. Obviously it is fine for dates, events, occurrences and documentation but not for dubious verdicts. Having actually read the book, I know how the author clutches at razors to exclude Kosovo from the wider Serbian world and this includes denying legal ties as well as playing down the cultural influence. For instance, Malcolm creates an Aunt Sally which he throws sticks at by referring to Serbia's entry into Kosovo as an 'occupation', and continues to use the term 'occupied' with the language of official sanction for the period up to when the region of Kosovo was incorporated into the constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - which Malcolm also lamely denies to be a Serbian nation state and treats the country as though its constituent nations are still under Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian rule. The reality is different, the annexation of a new land is subject to international recognition, more so then than now because unlike the Republic of Kosovo which has seen a steady rise to over 100 states recognising and counting, in those days there were fewer states and almost everything was down to treaties involving the world powers and the involved nations. Constitutions on the other hand don't dictate such things nor do they play a role on the world stage. They are largely an embellishment and states are not even obliged to have constitutions, the UK being a good example. Its borders are still marked though. The Big Hoof! (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you propose to do? This info is obviously very POV and disputed. Should we remove it? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we reflect what reliable sources say? I recognise that Malcolm is disliked by some editors on one side of en.wikipedia's ongoing Balkan conflicts, but the reliable sources noticeboard generally favours sources like this, and in this case the source gives it a couple of pages coverage rather than being some throwaway coverage. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

More generally (if we can consider other improvements apart from Kosovo), it would be a good idea to improve coverage of historic constitutional change. As well as Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah has a lot to say about the Vidovdan Constitution. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer WhiteWriter, this is my suggestion. It is definitely a point that belongs on this page. Naturally we word it accordingly and avoid POV terminology but the incorporation of new lands when not conforming to a constitution is a notable, recordable and encyclopedic fact. Also, the fact that it is cited by a historian, whoever he may be, allows editors to recount the information without falling into Original Research traps. The only true source for this is a copy of the constitution itself along with the principles of the London and Bucharest treaties. That is what makes a historian different from a reporter: if a BBC correspondent falsely reports something, you are free to add it to the article because it comes from a reliable source. He is free to lie and only his conscience knows the truth. But a historian cannot achieve credibility in his works unless he backs it up with published material. As such, the unconstitutional inclusion of Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia is a solid truth. I personally don't have a problem with Noel Malcolm myself, I said what I had to say in my last edit here, it is being cautious which bits we use. Not just of him but Judah too as well as historians tending more towards the Serbian viewpoints. We need to separate their hard facts from their "expert opinions". So what we mustn't do is paste the same information over onto pages where Kosovo's 1912 status in Serbia is not truly relevant, or present the facts in a way deliberately aiming to promote specific viewpoints. Over here, if written well, it is fine as is the source to back it up. On other pages, it needs to be broached differently. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
Perhaps there has been some confusion. Articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say; I cited a reliable source. Do you have some other source which says the 1903 constitution wasn't in force at the time? I can't think why else you would try to cast doubt on reliably sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. You did not cite a reliable source. You cited Kosovo: A Short History by Noel Malcolm, a member of the Bosnian Institute, Anglo-Albanian Association and Academy of Sciences and Arts of Kosovo. While your source is a published source, it does not cover all majority and significant minority views. In your case, it only covers a minority view (and a very POV one at that) which you attempt to portray as a world wide view. This does not conform with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. As such, the view must be attributed to the author and a request for better or further citation is warranted. Buttons (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That is nonsense. It's not a minority view to say that the 1903 constitution was in force at the time; far from it. Have you even read the sources? bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is doubting that the constitution was in force. What is doubtful is Malcolm's theory that Serbia's annexation of Kosovo from the Ottoman Empire was somehow unlawful or unconstitutional despite it being fully recognized by the Treaty of London. I have never heard of a Constitution preventing a country's territorial expansion in times of war, that is nonsense. Malcolm is a biased writer with an agenda and he makes no attempt to hide it. Buttons (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you believe what you are typing, but it is not compatible with what the sources say. Have you read the sources? bobrayner (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

23 editor, it is frustrating that you insist on edit-warring weasel wording into this. I understand that you disagree with what the sources say, but articles should reflect what sources say. That goal will be achieved when you take your finger off the revert button, or it is removed. In your blind rush to distort content, you've even presented it as though Malcolm is the only person who says it, even after I add additional sourcing; and it's already the best-referenced section of the article. bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles should reflect what reliable sources say. You still haven't defended why Noel Malcolm is a reliable sources given my reason stated above. You are clearly the minority here. In respect of NPOV, Malcolm's opinion in still in the article, yet you object the opinion being attributed to the author claiming it is weasel wording. The only person distorting anything here is you. Buttons (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The source is Noel Malcolm, one of about half a dozen English language 'historians' to plagiarize the high profile Albanian propagandists. He states that it is 'conquered' simply because there was a narrow Albanian majority in the province a the time. I've inserted 'annexed' and it was indeed annexed. By removing it is to say this wasn't the case when it was. Kosovo entered Serbia and through Yugoslavia remained pinned to it for many years. To qualify as conquest, it needs to be expropriated by an outside force. Given Serbs, Bulgarians and Slavic Muslims collectively made almost half of Kosovo in 1912 and rose up from inside the province, it cannot be a conquest. Compare this to Conquest of Anatolia or Conquest of the Americas which are not only documented but not denied by the remnants of the 'conquering' factions. --178.221.118.205 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Just reading the source, Malcolm actually concedes that the Serbs referred to the removal of the Ottomans as a liberation, therefore 'conquered' is well and truly relative, and POV. --178.221.118.205 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No doubt many serbs then and now believed it to be "liberation". However, wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. What could be more neutral than "conquered"? As for the comment about "outside force", are you pretending that the Serb army wasn't from outside Kosovo, or that it wasn't a force? bobrayner (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The army of the Kingdom of Serbia was part of the Balkan League which included both Bulgaria and Montenegro's kingdoms. Montenegro also took a big chunk of Kosovo and a fair slice remains in Montenegro today (ie. Pljevlja, Berane, Bijelo Polje etc). If Mr Malcolm didn't bother to include the well-documented civil uprisings from inside Kosovo from the non-Albanian population which welcomed the Balkan League and opposed the Ottoman Empire, he's not much of a historian. Either way, 'conquer' is not neutral as it implies that a army is venturing into unchartered territory to subjugate an entire population with which it has had no previous encounter, much like the Scramble for Africa, whereas in fact the Serb, Greek and Bulgarian kingdoms were aspiring to oust the Ottomans in certain areas where a) they had an ethnic population, and b) their nations had previously in history governed those territories. The word 'conquest' has since been deployed in deliberate protest to "liberation". The fact is that one man's liberation can be another man's conquest, therefore both terms are POV and I don't advocate using 'liberate' even though on the wider spectrum, all sources refer to the combined effort to repel Ottoman forces to today's Turkey at East Thracia as a major liberation exercise. As such that includes the creation of Albania, and the expansions of Montenegro, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. On top of that, try finding one source that refers to the Montenegrin incorporation of Pljevlja as "conquered", or the Greek inclusion of Epirus as "conquered" when these were all results of the original campaign (First Balkan war) and were all settled at the Treaty of London in 1913. Whilst searching, see if you can find anything on the history of Novi Pazar or Priboj which recognizes their entry into Serbia as "conquest", after all, were they not a part of Kosovo in 1912? --178.221.118.205 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User removed hald of article without reasoning. I restored it back, as it was like that for a long time. Why you removed all of that from article? Do you have any reason to delete sources and useful content? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

i add source to this neutral words, as someone talked above. here i added --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And this was already in article someone add it again without need. this. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And this user is creating mess again! here Why are you removing this? Its the most important part of Serbian constitution. And its controversial part. I think that you are removing it only besauce you dont like it. Or it somehow offend you. Is there any real reason to remove this? Will you ever use talkpage on wikipedia!? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that the preamble is the most important part and must be copied word-for-word into the article, then you have my sympathies. However, I think you are more intelligent than that. bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the most important part besauce i saw it online that Germany is asking from Serbia to change constitution and to remove that part so they can continue EU path. That's why its important! They didnt like it like you also... So it is important, i will try to find that info, and add it in article, its encyclopedic subject. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316002931/https://www.belgraded.com/serbian-constitutional-history-part-i to http://www.belgraded.com/serbian-constitutional-history-part-i

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)