Talk:Serbs in Dubrovnik/Archive 1

Ethnic identity

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

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

I know that this message comes very late but if I can just say, ethnogenesis is sloppy and unrelyable and very assuming. If there are similarities between Dubrovnik Croats and Serbs which are different from Vojvodina Serbs, be sure that those Vojvodina Serbs will have commonalities with their local Croatian neighbours, and Bunjevs and other nations. My point is that what one nation gains with one hand, it loses with another, atleast in our case. If it was true that the Balkans were occupied by giant unrelated tribes, one called Serb, the other called Croat, then they did so having already assimilated Slavic language & culture. If they settled in different places, then they never stayed there long because for hundreds of years right up to the present day, there have been countless transfers, people have moved about - and the Adriatic (my homeland) is an example. The very fact that Ragusa became Dubrovnik whilst being independent was down to major influxes from the hinterlands. Were they Serb or were they Croat, or something else, or bits of everything, nobody can prove or disprove. The best way to take ones ethnicitity is accept what he chooses, he in return should respect your wish. It's all about consciousness, if it wasn't - and a rule suggested that you could only be what your parents were, then we'd all be the same around the world, because man ultimately comes from one source. Balkantropolis 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Catholic Serbs

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

Removed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well I am afraid that that is just sheer ignorance on your half. The only people in Croatia who have "bad memories" of Yugoslavia are the polititians who were suppressed in creating a breakaway state, not every day people. Holiday makers in the 60s from abroad don't recall visiting the coastline where the locals were damp, miserable and prisoners in an state to which they were annexed, the only bad memories would have been from 1990 to 1995 when ones life wasn't always guaranteed. As for linking Yugoslavia with Greater Serbia, this isn't even slightly accuracte - especially for the present-day people, because even our oldest people only really remember the 2nd world war and after, the time you speak about, and for that period, ALL political movement designed to break away was silenced, and no map of proposed Serbia includes Istria and Slovenia and another big chunk of Croatia, but many from the 19th century seem to include parts of todays Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. And another thing, if one is a Serbian nationalist, he doesn't have to hide behind Pan-Slavism theories. One is a nationalist because he believes in the superiority of one particular people, regardless of whether certain non-members are ethnicly the same. The idea of being Pan-Slavic was to promote the national ideas of Slavic people on the whole against the world outside them, but he would not distinguish Istrian Croats from Dubrovnik Croats from Dubrovnik Serbs from Kashubians of Poland. If one steps forward with the belief that ethnic-Syrmians are superior, his idea will be to greater Greater Srijem. The next plan is to map out your unredeemed areas, and if successful - capture them. But it is senseless to find a commonality between Syrmians and Zagorjans, only to knife them in the back when you achieve this state and make the declared Syrmians the primary race. Either two groups go into federation united, or one annexes the other - when you annexe someone, this is followed by taking the peoples right to self-identify, and with that comes the renaming of the different parts of your territory (ie. Turkey doesn't call its south-east "Kurdistan"). Now I grew up in a country where I had the same if not more benefits than many close-by, I never felt a sense of denial or unnatural happyness/freedom in other people, and I have never ever declared myself Serb and neither did anyone from my family. I have called my language Serbo-Croat, or Croatian, but never Serbian, and the only Serbs I really knew closely when growing up, were all Catholic, beofre I was 21 I had little to do with Orthodox Serbs and Serbs from outside Herzegovina and Dubrovnik. Balkantropolis 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-War Serb population

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

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

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

Yugoslav Wars

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

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

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

Explanation

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

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

The relevance is:

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

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

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

War in Croatia

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant article is call Croatian War of Independence.

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed!

The neutrality of this article is disputed. This article is sourced from an uncredible source. Nationalistic myths shouldn't be included in the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.71 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

A likely story. The sources are Croatian statistics and Banac. Your IP is registered in Croatia. Don't trust your own statistical sources? This smacks of vandalism, pal--As286 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My proxy IP is registred in Croatia, next time it could be registred in Serbia, or Republic of Montenegro, or maybe next year in Republic of Kosovo. I don't trust unofficial Croatian statistics. Banac is uncredible source, and this article is disputed!

Did you even bother to read the article? The statistics are coming from Drzavni Zavod za Statistiku? That is not official enough? No you are not really disputing anything. You are obviously not interested in discussing or adding content. And still you did not bother to explain WHAT it is that you think of as biased.--As286 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For English speakers: Drzavni Zavod za Statistiku=State Institute of Statistics (of Croatia).--Methodius 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He does not want to talk. Just reported his IP(s) to admin.--As286 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. This article is sourced from an uncredible source and contains nationalistic myths. This discussion page is the best example of disputed article.

Myths? Nationalistic? This article is almost all lists! There is hardly any statements here at all. If you don't like something why don't you just edit it and explain in this page why you have edited it instead of putting the NPOV tag. If the problem is the section on what happened in 1991, then the idea might be to remove that section into separate article. It probably does not fit here anyway.--As286 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Historically, a number of notable Dubrovnik Catholics considered themselves to be Serbs." This sentence is unacceptable. Peoples of Dubrovnik didn't considered themselves to be Serbs or Croats. (Уосталом, није битно дал су били хрвати ил срби. Муслимани ће ионако асимилирати оба народа.)

And why we should listen to you, not Ivo Banac quite respected Croatian historian who studies Balkan? You are not saying "this is right, this is wrong", but "unacceptable". Unacceptable to you, problem seems to be with you, not with article, mm?--Methodius 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User Methodus, both you & As286 keep reverting my edits w/o explanation. Pls address each point directly. Thanks for your understanding. iruka 10:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Points

Historically, a number of notable Dubrovnik Catholics considered themselves Serbs.

• what is accesible of the article does not say this - this is an interpretation & thus represents original research

Vs

Historically, a number of notable Dubrovnik Catholics came to espouse a Serb national ideology and political goals.[4]

• Opted for the latter wording because it is what is quoted verbatim in the cited source.

• Removed Ruđer Bošković b/c his national affiliation is disputed.

• Opted for During the Croatian war of independence as opposed to the non-descript "war in Croatia" (see earlier discussion on this point. Also added with the defence of the strategically important Prevalaka region used as a pretext. The desired outcome by Serb political & military leaders was to have a "Serbian state right up to the left bank of the Neretva with its capital Dubrovnik", to be called "Niksic-on-Sea".[5] because it describes the political & military aims associated with the bombing of dubrovnik by Serbs (including those from Dubrovnik) & quotes ver batim from cited source.

• Added that ICTY indictments ended in guilty verdicts & cited relevant ICTY document on the judgement [6].

• Returned sentence on legacy of inter-ethnic relations in Dubrovnik The legacy of the war includes widespread mistrust and antagonism between the majority Croats and minority Serbs.

• Added picture of areas of Dubrovnik that were bombed & video footage of bombing Video of the attack on Dubrovnik - the relevance being that this is an article on Serbs of Dubrovnik, & it was the desire to detach Dubrovnik from Croatia & incorporate into an enlarged Serbia that saw it's bombing. More importantly, the coveting of Dubrovnik by teh Serb political establishment (with support from a portion of Dubrovnik's Serb population) has been a important factor in defining inter-ethnic relations in the city. iruka 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. OK, because there is this only source.
2. Rudjer Boskovic - OK, for now.
3. War of Independence is not right. It takes stance on aims of war. Looking from outside, war was not for independence, but to get control of Serb Krajina. Milos Vasic can say Serb aim was this, Serb aim was that, noone really knows. But we know it was not to conquer Croatia. But that is what "war of independence" makes us think.
4. OK, more-less.
5. Where is source? Is this really legacy of war? There were problems before. Are there really still problems? Or just your view?
6. Shelling of Dubrovnik does not belong in this article. Map of shelled places (if real) does not have relevance here. The end. Put it in History of Dubrovnik or something. Paralell: It is like me putting all treasures Nazi Croats (Ustase) looted (it is a lot) from Serbian monasterys in Fruska Gora during WW2 into Croats of Vojvodina. Do you see? It is not relevant.--Methodius 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. ok
2. ok
3. ok, so what you are saying is if we say war of independence, it implies that Krajina was part of Croatia; but if we say war in Croatia, it implies Krajina was separate that was subsequently integrated into Croatia after a military campaign. One flaw with this is that Dubrovnik was not part of the Krajina entity AFAIK, nor part of the historical military frontier region, and the city & outlying regions had a population that was circa 90% Croat. Other problems with War in Croatia is that entity known as Serb Krajina was defined militarily (it didn't exist in any form during the first or second Yugoslavia) & vanished the same way - legally it was recognised as an integral part of Croatia as the AVNOJ boundaries were recognised internationally as international boundaries - Krajina was not delineated entirely ethnically as it contained many Croat areas, & the use of the term Krajina had little relation to borders of the Croatian/Slavonian military frontier from which it draws it's name from - independence involves a territorial definition as there is little point to independence if it is not over a perceived national space. And the only valid definition we have is that which is internationally defined i.e. the AVNOJ boundaries. As a compromise, may I suggest doing what was there previously, and that is to have both terms in the article - one in the sub-title & one in the text or vice versa. Why not also include The desired outcome by Serb political & military leaders was to have a "Serbian state right up to the left bank of the Neretva with its capital Dubrovnik", to be called "Niksic-on-Sea".[7] b/c it is relevant to the history section of the article & it is sourced? iruka 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
4. ok
5. I'm thinking about incidents such as the vandalism of cars with Belgrade number plates or the beating up of a Serb reporter by waterpolo fans, or even the ordinary Dubrovnik populace's reaction to the Croatian governments normalisation of relations with Crna Gora / Serbia w/o an apology or war reparations as a pre-condition. Don't have readily available sources though.
6. ok iruka 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, how about creating a separate article on the War, taking all this there and linking to it from here with a neutral title? It makes more sense, as it seems to me that this one ought to be about notable Serbs who lived in Dubrovnik throughout the ages. The old Republic had excellent relations with the Serbian kings in Middle Ages (ambassadors, envoys, etc.) and the relations were diplomatic, cultural, etc. There were other nationalities too. There was a mosque and a synagogue in the old Dubrovnik for centuries, so it makes sense to talk about minorities in the city.--As286 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that we would in efefct are satinising one part of history. The question then would be what else do we compartmentalise away from this article. The war is significant in terms of the relations Serbs had with the majority Croats in the area, and with neighbouring BiH, CrnaGora & Serbia. Also, AFAIK, it is the only time the city has being bombed, so it has some historical significance. What I think would work better is to have a timeline, & a summary of each period, which links to a larger article. iruka 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The old Republic had excellent relations with all European countries. I agree with your last sentence, however this must be article whitout myths.

If I remember, there is a mass of famous Dubrovnikers from the 19th century who had considered themselves Serbs (as opposed to those who didn't, and so far I've seen none).

Also Czoernig's Demographics of the Habsburg Monarchy census should make relevance to this, since according to his (official Vienna) data, Serbs form absolute majority in the municipality of Dubrovnik. --PaxEquilibrium 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong name

The articlename is uncorrect and misplaced.
There's no reason to make special article about the Serbs in Dubrovnik. There's more Serbs in Zagreb and Split, than Dubrovnik ever had.
So, if you want to speak about the Serbs in this city, the article should be part of article Serbs in Croatia.
If you want to speak about political movement of so-called Serb Catholics (exactly in this order), than the content of this article has to be part of that article.
Otherwise, this is perfidious propagandism. Perfidious way of promoting of usurpating and appropriating of territory of an other country (after a militar way of conquering didn't succeed).
Why it's so hard to put this in these two articles above? Why it's so hard to mention Croatia? Why it's so hard to say that these persons (mostly of Croat origin, with few of Italian origins) were living in the illusions? How come that this movement dissappeared, vanished, by 1918 the movement of Serb Catholics was history (the financer Serbia run out of money, plus fact that ideologist of Greater Serbia saw that this idea of Serbs of 3 religions got no ground among Croats, and further financing of this illusion is a waste of money). Kubura (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Serbs of Mostar article, separately from the Bosnian Serbs article. If you feel like it, you're free to make the Serbs of Zagreb article.

A vast number of them were from Bosnian or Serbian origin, but most of them are of domestic Ragusan. A very small number were of Croatian or Italian for that matter.

I don't understand why you want to tag them with illusions...and now, they didn't vanish by 1918. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"They didn't vanish?". Please, don't be silly.
Why don't you say how those "Serbs" changed their declaring by nationality after the formation of Kingdom of SHS? Then, when they got the country they idealized, they dissappeared from the scene. Something, that has no ground, cannot stand. Kubura (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that Milan Resetar died in 1942, and countless others...I could also claim that they disappeared the same way in 1941/5. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Citing of Banac's work, but not the parts that you don't want to be mentioned. And Pax defending Anti-Note. "They are not the same person"? Don't be naive. Kubura (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you reply 11 months later? Pax's profile seems to be banned at this time. (LAz17 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)).

Because I have private life outside Wikipedia. I don't hang 24/7 on every article and talkpage where I've contributed. Kubura (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

False facts

"A Serbian Orthodox church in Dubrovnik was built in the 19th century." That was Russian Orthodox church which was built by Dubrovnik's government - as a token of peace between Russia and Dubrovnik (after the Russian siege of Dubrovnik in early 19th century). Later, that church was taken by Serbian Orthodox church because they needed place for prayers and the only available place was - Russian Orthodox church.

"Dubrovnik was for reigned by the Serb medieval state in the 11th century." Dubrovnik was never ruled by Serbian duke or king.

"Notable individuals:..." 95% of them were Croats, not Serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.143.96 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

1991 Population Census

I just have a question. Where were you able to find the statistics for the 1991 census in Croatia? I have been looking everywhere for the demographics of the cities and towns for croatia in 1991 and have been unable to find them anywhere. If you could provide me with these figures or a link I'd be very grateful. 142.157.194.8 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)yugo91aesop

Extremely biased

This part of the article is extremely biased:

"In the 19th century there was a strong cultural and political movement of "Serb-Catholics" in Dubrovnik. All notable citizens of Dubrovnik, among them the catholic pristers such as Ivan Stojanović, considered themselves Serbs. There is a common misinterpretation that movement was sponsored and established by Serbia. However, Serbia didn't get independency and the possibility of international agitation before 1878. Serbian cultural movement in Dubrovnik on the other side has raised in the 1820s and 1830s. There is a genuine statement on the national matter in the Dubrovnik almanac "Durbovnik - cvijet narodnoga knjizeštva" from 1851:

"I mi Srbi, neki smo iztočne crkve, neki zapadne, neki uniatske, a neki prešli smo na tursku vjeru; ništa manje svi smo Srbi, ter sastavljamo srbsko pleme, kojima god srbsko narečie jest narečie materinsko. Ima nas preko pet miliona, a živemo u Dalmaciji, u Ercegovini, u Crnojgori, u nekim predjelima gornje Albanije i Mačedonije, u Srbiji, u Slavoniji i u južnoj Ungariji [Vojvodini]."[1]

The Serbian orientation of the city in the 19th century raised as a genuine and natural response to the historical heritage of the city. Initially a Roman city, Dubrovnik was flooded with Slavic immigrants from the Serbian empire during the mediaeval period. The language of the Slavic people in the city was mentioned in the historical documents many times simply as "Slavic" or "Serbian", never as "Croatian".[2] Historically, a number of notable Dubrovnik Catholics came to espouse a Serb national ideology and political goals.[3] Serbia did not finance the national movements in the Austrian Empire, which was objected by many nationalists in Bosnia and Dalmatia. During the second part of the 19th century Serbian national party in Dubrovnik ruled the city council for decades. Eventually, the predominal Serbian cultural orientation of the city was lost at the beginning of the 20-th century, due to migrations and Austrian retributive policy. In 1908 all Serbian unions, clubs and newspapers in the city were closed and forbidden by Austrian authorities, which had led to massive emigrations of Dubrovnik Serbian-oriented high society. During the Kingdom of Yugoslavia those Serbs who left in Dubrovnik have opted for the Yugoslav national unity in contrast to Croats in the city who opted for the particular Croatian nationalism which had lad to the establishment of Croatia county (Banovina Hrvatska). Those circumstences have even intesifies emigration and led during the Idenpendet State of Croatia period to the total reorientation of the city to the Croatian culture."

How come Croatia never had to conquer Dubrovnik in order "to make it" Croatian? This article states that is unjustly Croatian and should be Serbian. Totally biased and deceitful.

--Andreas1991 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Predominant Serbian cultural orientation".
"massive emigrations of Dubrovnik Serbian-oriented high society". Yeah, wright, possibly Austro-Hungarian authorities have resettled "500,000,000 of Dubrovnikans Serbs" in Mesopotamian desert in 1908, so those "Serbs" had no money to return back and they were so tired to return 10 years after. Or Austria-Hungary has resettled those 500,000,000 Serbs into Tyrol, and they preferred in 1918 to stay in rainy mountains of Tyrol, rather then "return" in mild Mediterranean climate of Dubrovnik.
Possibly they were in camps for Bajorans. Come on. Kubura (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not edited the article, but where it mentions Mesopotamia or Tyrol? You should also remind that back then, the concept of "Serbian" was much wider than today... FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)