Active discussions


You should change Christian Slav to Croatian Catholics since they were the ones that were part of Uskok. No other Slav christians participated (Slovenian Catholics, Serbian,Macedonian and Montenegrian (ortodox) Christians were not part of it)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:13, 18 November 2005

- You should not change articles without enough knowledge about the matters they are describing -

I am openning a discussion to review the historical meaning of the designation USKOK ::

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:11, 25 June 2006

Right now I rolled back the latter anonymous edit simply because it was an abuse of the revert functionality - if you wish to harp on your own point, do it without removing otherwise added text.
I come from a background where there is no mention of any non-Croatian uskoks. The hajduks were spread out, but the term uskok was applied only to those in Senj. The story you are telling about the Montenegrins could well account for the etymology, although that doesn't necessarily mean much for the application of the term.
Both anonymouses - do note that nobody is going to be convinced about either story without some references. --Joy [shallot] 07:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i think there is no need for separate serbian and croatian translation of uskoks: -the two languages are linguistically considered one single language with 2 (or more) standards

-although serbian primarilly uses cyrillic latin is also official in the serbian standard 16:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Uskoks--who they wereEdit

I've done research and read part of Catherine Wendy Bracewell's The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry and Holy War in the Sixteenth-Century Adriatic. Uskoks are exclusively described as Croatian. Historical references often show minorities called Turks, Albanians, Austrians, Vlachs, etc as Uskoks, but as Bracewell explains, this is mostly due to the fact that the writers tended to call a person by whatever territory they came from. If a man was from Ottoman territory, he would sometimes be called a Turk. Same for Austrian. The majority of evidence shows Uskoks as being Croats, nevertheless, the concept of Uskoci as Croatian (rather than Croats) is cemented. The minorities (Albanians, Austrians, Italians, Vlachs) who were Uskoks were just that--minorities and do not merit any "special" (for want of a better expression) mention in the beginning paragraph. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not important because they can be soldier of Japan nationality but if they are in service of Croatian state they are Croatian soldiers. Because of that before 1553 they are Croatian soldiers (Kingdom of Croatia) and after creation of Military Frontier they are Habsburg soldiers.--Rjecina (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Even so, the point I was trying to make was that these Croatian 'soldiers' (for want of a better word) were almost exclusively Croats, so there could be no other reason to try to twist it any other way. Plus, I don't see the need to list 'others' in the opening paragraph since they were an insignificant minority. Regards. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pax that begining of article is POV. I am having problem with words:"soldiers that inhabited the areas of Dalmatia, Herzegovina, Montenegro and the surrounding territories". Maybe I am making mistake but article is about Klis and Senj uskoci ! If my knowledge of geography and history is OK this 2 towns are in Croatia or we can say in Croatian Dalmatia, Kingdom of Croatia and Croatian Krajina ! I can't understand Herzegovina and Montenegro ???--Rjecina (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment, I believe we should not get entangled in the rather complex and varying political situation on the ground. These were soldiers of the Habsburg Monarchy and so was any other Croat (and/or Serb) fighting for the Emperor and King. The question of their ethnicity is seperate in my view from that of what political faction (or minor de jure subdivision) they were fighting for. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I have tried to explain that these Uskoks were Croatian (note:not Croat, though that is a different story) soldiers/pirates under the Habsburg yoke, and should be treated thus. Though I disagree, Uskoks did not necessarily fight for Emperor and King, they were somewhat wild and plundered as well. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. They were a Habsburg military community of mostly Croatian ethnicity. When I said they were fighting for the K&K I meant nominally, of course. They were indeed very independent and resourceful. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

i would like to comment on the croat ethnicity of uskoks and their exclusive senj locality. we, in slovenia, were thaught in school that uskoks were christian slavs fleeing from the ottoman empire to the habsburg lands who were croatian AND serb by ethnicity. en plus they settled mostly in the territory of the military frontier, where they pledged to fight the turks in exchange for some benefices such as tax exemption, but also in other areas. thus there is a tiny serb orthodox minority in the south of slovenia (Bela Krajina) that traces it's roots to the Uskoks. for that i have no other references than my old schoolbook for which i believe to be unbiased since our national history hasn't much to do with that of the uskoks. (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
without wishing to lecture an insider with outsider knowledge, still, I don't think such a thing as Serb vs. Croatian ethnicity exists. The distinction is in the religion (or religious upbringing of the culture), culture, and, though that has been exaggerated, to some in the language (and, depending on which Serb you take, perhaps the alphabet) - not in ethnicity. So, I take what you say as just that some of them were Serbs and others Croats, simply (and nationally) said.--2001:A61:260C:C01:9D64:6AAB:C9E4:37FB (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


So what's the deal with your whole editing procedure? I have a valid source and it didn't say anything about Serbian and Bosnian "minorities". In fact it said that many Uskoks were Serbian and Bosnian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid source, but it says that some (many fugitives) Uskoks were from Bosnia and Serbia, not that they were Bosnians or Serbians (many Croats lived there as well). But, the point is, these were soldiers of the Habsburg Monarchy, established in Croatia, and most of them were ethnic Croats. Uskoks were established in the Klis Fortress near Split. Later in struggle many others joined. Anyway, your sentence is in the article, but not in the lead section. --Kebeta (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I still don't see why it isn't in the lead though, it would make more sense since your already saying they were of Croatian ethnicity, it just seems natural to include that they were of Serbian and Bosnian ethnicity as well in the same sentence/paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nobody is saying in the lead that they were of Croatian ethnicity or Croats (although most of them were). It is written that they were Croatian Habsburg soldiers (which include Croats, Albanians, Serbs, Austrians, Croatia). It is not written Croat Habsburg soldiers (Croatian ethnicity). If you click Croatian Habsburg, it redirect you to the article Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), not to the Croats. --Kebeta (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's misleading. When most people see Croatian Habsburg, almost all of them think Croats and that's not exactly painting an accurate picture. A better sentence would read that they were "Croatian Habsburg soldiers, whose origins stemmed primarily from Croats, Bosnians, and Serbs" or something along the lines of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kebeta said it all, but I want to add that "Croatian Hapsburg" goes not equal "Croat" peoples as an ethnicity. The region of Croatia-Slavonia was part of the Hapsburg/Austria-Hungary empire for several centuries; while it had it's own administrations and bans, it was still under the rule of the Hapsburgs (and at times, the Ottomans.) The phrase refers to the region as well as the peoples. Remember, ethnicity and nationality was not as concrete back then as it is today--that is part of the reason for my wanting to keep it simple. Kebeta found a good solution, I think--Jesuislafete (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand though, when the average person sees "Croatian Habsburg" their immediately going to assumethat they were exclusively Croats, which is not the case. Like I said, in order to clarify between the nationality or the uskoks and the ethnicity of the uskoks, the article should read:

The Uskoks were "Croatian Habsburg soldiers, whose origins stemmed primarily from Croats, Bosnians, and Serbs" or something like that. That way, the average reader sees that the uskoks fought for Habsburg Croatia, but that they were of Croat, Bosnian, and Serb stock.

Serbia--I cannot control what people's mind jump to, only what is most correct. In this case, I would have to disagree, because "Croatian" is different from flat out "Croat". Croatian encompasses the region, Croat the peoples. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but again, my version is the most correct. It tell what peoples they were comprised of, and what state they fought for. Read my proposed suggestion and I think you'll find its the most accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How am I a liar. I changed the sentence to read that they're origins are from Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia and that is exactly what my source says, it says that their ranks were filled from refugees from Serbia and Bosnia. My source says almost exactly what I wrote. How does it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Serbs part of Croatian UskoksEdit

Sometime in 1530, Serb Uskoks under Vladislav Stefović seeked lands in Mutnica (Kranjska) to defend the frontiers by attacking Ottoman Turks. The 50 families lived in Metkike to Crnomlja, Kostelo to Lasa, Krasa into Kapela. King Ferdinand granted the Serbs the lands of Žumberak and gave them assistance in organizing their counts and dukes of the many clans. They were exempted of tax pay in return of military service in the Austrian army, they were permitted to raid and pillage Turkish settlements across the border. Nikola Jurisic settled 600 families in 1535. In 1538, the Kranjska dukes of Vuk Popovic, Resan Lismanovic and Djuro Radivojcevic went to the Adriatic coast to settle families there. The three Serb military officers of Koprivnica, Križevci and Ivanic formed the Varaždin general command. The Uskoks led uprisings in 1542 to 1546 after the death of their cattle after grasshopper invasion. Ivan Lenkovic found the Uskok families in misery and resettled a remaining 180 families in the region, buying out the privately owned Mehovo and stabilizing the region. The Žumberak Serbs had initially freedom of faith but were later converted into Greek Catholicism under pressure from Rome, and later into Roman Catholicism during the World War II.

The 12 Dukes assigned as leaders were titled as Captains; leading as before their family tribe, assisting Austria in the war against the Turks. The names of the chosen Dukes, 12 in all, are as follows: Vraneš Badovinac, Radovja Bastašić, Pavle Klisurić, Nikola Ivanović, Lobat Popović, Novak Nikolić, Stephan Vrančić, Radman Vučetić, Dragiša Vrančić, Siniša Vrajlović, Radoslav Vulović and Daja Vulović. Flagbearer: Vraneš Vukičević; Drummer: Radić; and Trumpeter: Janko Gasparović (...)

The Catholic Štokavian-speakers of Western Slavonia trace their history back to Rascian Serbs who converted into Greek Catholicism (for a smoother conversion) and then to Roman Catholicism. Only a very small number are still Orthodox Christian.

I am writing this to the user using both IP addresses and (perhaps even multiple) user accounts. You have not added anything new to discussion than what was discussed ABOVE. Moreover, the exact same source is already in the article. Looking at your past edits, you are not one to qualify as "neutral" or "fair" given that the vast amount of time you have spent on Wikipedia has resulted in your edits being reverted because of your attempt to insert claims of Serb supremacy or presence in article. Your edits are far from being fair or neutral; you seem to be employing Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Your Uskok edits are nothing but a bizarre attempt to soothe your own ego rather than contribute to accuracy of the aforementioned article. You seem to be new to Wikipedia and don't seem to understand it. I recommend you to read the rules and contribute to the article's growth rather than your own. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to let the record show that Serbia's "source" ::P.S. I looked at your "source" seen here: The Ottoman Empire and early modern Europe simply had him going to google books, typing in the keywords "uskok serbs bosnia" in order to find ANY source he can use to further advance his agenda. This is a terrible way to research something. Let the record here show that he has reverted, multiple times using various IP addresses and has not utilized the talk page as he should have. I recommend having some sort of action taken against him. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would like to point out that Serbia's edits are deliberately misleading and do not actually source what he is saying. Here is what he is trying to say: "soldiers whose origins stemmed primarily from the Croats, Serbs..". Yet the source he is referencing makes no mention of this: "...Uskoks, a community of destructive yet determined privateers --many of whom were fugitives from Ottoman Bosnia and Serbia.." --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though if YOU read the history pages you would see that I actually said that those other IP addresses were MINE and that I was posting from different computers. I've clearly not got anything to hide since I admitted it in the first place. Although I suppose cheapshots are all you've got against me.

The fact that you think its a "terrible way to research something" makes no difference. The fact is, is that its a reputable, Western source and how I found it means absolutely nothing. Again, all you're doing is using irrelevant information to slander me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


I've temporarily protected the article from anonymous+unconfirmed user edits in an effort to end the edit war. I'm fine with any other admin reverting that decision at will, since I'm not absolutely neutral (then again, who is?). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The trolling by the "anon" should be monitered carefully, especially since this person is anything but neutral...they're trying to make others look illogical by calling them un-neutral. The fact that the user did not even respond to the talk pages shows that this person is a troll. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did respond to all of the talk pages, it is you who hasn't. And you are are being un-neutral, the ONLY problem you have with my version is that it mentions Serbia and Bosnia, there is absolutely no other possible reason (unless you would care to provide one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User Serbia123's use of profanity and deconstructive edits should get some reprimand, shouldn't it? --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Where have I used profanity on this page. Not to mention you refuse to reply to any of my posts on the discussion page so it is you who is making the deconstructive edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not added anything new. It is you who have not responded to my posts, you still don't know how to sign your name on Wikipedia, and I doubt you ever reviewed Wiki's rules or how to edit pages because you are clearly not editing for encyclopedic content, but your own personal war. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Quote by User:Serbia123 on history page: "My sources says THAT THERE WERE FUGITIVES FROM SERBIA AND BOSNIA. THE SENTECE SAYS THAT THEYRE ORIGINS WERE FROM CROATIA, SERBIA AND BOSNIA. Dont call me a fucking liar" --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE added something new, I changed the grammar of the sentence to comply with your demands. It says SERBIA and so does my source. It says BOSNIA and so does my source. There is no reason why my version is wrong and you have yet to provide one.

As for the profanity, you called me a liar at least I didn't use personal insults. Perhaps those should get some reprimand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the point. This is why it is so frustrating to try to reason with you: I doubt you read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Because this is what you are doing, and why you keep getting reverted. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold up, the reason I'm getting reverted is because I accidentally used a profanity word because I was angry at the time? I'm sorry, but the focus here should be the article, not my word choice on a discussion/history page.

Furthermore, I don't see how they are weasel words. The sentence clearly reads that their origins stemmed from Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia with the source backing it up (saying that their ranks were filled with refugees from Serbia and Bosnia). There's nothing with the sentence.

Your behavior reflects yourself on these pages, you should be aware of that and conduct yourself in an orderly fashion. We all make mistakes, and it's important to recognize that, even if it was in anger as you say. With that, I know what your sentence is saying, due to the fact it is already mentioned in a paragraph below in the "History": "At Senj, Uskoks were filled with some fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia.[4]" It is true, no one is denying that, it is in the history section. The introduction is just that: an introduction briefly explaining who the uksoks were and their importance. Everything else is explained further below. Got it? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1. If it is an introduction explaining who they were then their origins should definitely be included, am I right? Their ethnicity is a huge part of who they were, after all.

2. When it says Croatian Hapsburg it paints a somewhat misleading picture implying that they were exclusively Croatian while my version includes the kingdom of they fought for (ie. Hapsburg Croatia) and where they originally come from (ie. Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia) making it far more clear to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it just satisfies your desire to see the word "Serb(i)(a)(n)" everywhere. The introduction is not misleading at all because these WERE Croatians, based primarily at SENJ, a Croatian town. Several different users already have reverted your edits. You are just prolonging an edit war. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I could say that the only reason you and your Croatian friends are reverting my edits is to see YOUR desire to NOT see the word Serb(i)(a) anywhere. Its a frivolous and somewhat pointless argument to make, not to mention purely based on your speculation. And even if it were the case, the reason for editing doesn't matter, if the quality of the article is improved, that is all that matters.

The introduction is misleading because it implies that they were exclusively of Croatian ethnicity when they were not. And yeah, these WERE Croatians, based primarily at SENJ, a Croatian town and their origins WERE from Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia.

The introduction SHOULD include where they were from because it was an extremely important aspect of the Uskoks, am I right? Give me a reason for the introduction not to include their origins and don't say that it is already mentioned in the article because you know as well as I that to include the origins in the introduction is the most appropriate and effective place to put it. Not to mention the fact that if you look at any other wikipedia page about military formations, the ethnic groups from which it was formed is almost always included in the introduction.


Plus, you still have not given me a single reason as to why your version is any better than mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbia123, try to understand, although most of them were ethnic Croats, the Uskoks were also: Austrians, Italians, Venetians, Serbs, Bosnians, Albanians, Vlachs... But they were formed in Klis (Croatia), and later moved and acted from Senj (Croatia). And "Croatia" or "Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)" was a part of Habsburg reign back then. Thus, they were Croatian Habsburg soldiers - "pirates". Puting the Serbs or Serbia in the lead section, and leaving all other ethnic groups is misleading. Anyway, your sentence is in the article, and properly cited. --Kebeta (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1.Where did you get that most of them were Croats? I don't see any sources for that. In fact, my sources says that many of them were from Bosnia and Serbia.

2. Yeah, there were all of those minorities, but in very small quantities. You'll notice my sentence reads their origins were primarily from Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia.

3. No, its not misleading at all, I mentioned that Croats (Croatia) and Bosnians (Bosnia), which alongside the Serbs (Serbia), were indeed the major places of origin for the majority of Uskoks. I haven't left out any major ethnic groups included in the Uskoks and I did leave the fact that they fought for Habsburg Croatia.

4. Every other military formation Wikipedia article mentions the ethnic groups that formed the military formation, why on earth should this article be any different?There's only reason I can think of. Just tell me straight up, why does it bother you so much that I want their origins mentioned in the introduction (ie. the most logical place)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that every other military formation in Wikipedia mentions the ethnic groups that formed that military formation. In United States Marine Corps article, you will not found that some of them were Polish, Italian, or whatever. And certainly not in the lead section. BTW, before every battle against Ottomans or Venetians, the Uskoks were consecrated by Catholic priests. --Kebeta (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I already posted some articles. The introduction is the most logical place to put the uskoks ethnicity. You still have not given me a single reason why not to put my version up when clearly it is neutral and sourced and overall contributes to the quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talkcontribs) 00:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Therefore, I am done with you. I and others like Kebeta have stated literally everything possible, yet you still refuse to budge from your overly zealous nationalist stance. I am done. I literally cannont say anything more. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you're addmitting you're wrong because you know there is nothing you can say because you know I'm right. I just don't understand why you have such a huge problem with their origins being stated in the introduction. Honestly man, you haven't given me a single reason why it shouldn't be mentioned.

Overzealous nationalism? Oh please, if I was overzealously nationalistic I would've erased all mentions of the word Croat from the article all together. If anything, it is you who is being the nationalistic one. The only reason (as you have yet to provide one) I can see as to why putting up their origins in the introduction bothers you is because it includes "Serbia" and "Bosnia". I'm sure if I put that they were "Croatian Habsurb soldiers, whose origins stemmed from ethnic Croats" you wouldn't have a probelm with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at your edit history. You have spent a huge amount of your limited time on Wikipedia adding "Serb(ian) to everything. Case in point. The fact that you are unable to read the above arguments and facts and take them into account prove everything every user here has said about you. Looking further at your edit history, you have done NOTHING but edit this page for the majority of the past. So, your SOLE purpose has been editing this ONE page, adding your "Serb" edits. That is enough to question your purpose. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't given me a concrete reason. You don't understand, my reasons for editing have absolutely nothing to do with it. What's relevant is the quality of the article and the fact of the matter is that my edit makes logical sense and adds to it.

You have not given a reason as to why putting the origins of the uskoci in the introduction detracts from the quality of the article at all. Rather, all you have done is hypothesize as to what my motives are, which (false as they may be), are completely irrelevant. Give me an actual reason why not to include my sentence rather than dwindle on my motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Habsburg?!? Misleading!Edit

There's no mention of Venetian, which is perhaps even more important than Habsburg! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Got references for that? Jarkeld (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, Michigan, 2006, ISBN 0-472-11414-X, pp. 216-219.
Frederick Bernard Singleton, A short history of the Yugoslav peoples, Cambridge, 1989, ISBN 0-521-25478-7, p. 61.
Also, there were no Austrian ships at the Battle of Lepanto, so if any uskoks participated there, they were a part of Venetian forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jordan (talkcontribs) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have not checked whether that is in any way accurate, but in the only place where I know the Uskoks at all from, which is a German children's book, the Uskoks are portrayed as enemies of both Ottomans and Venice (though perhaps more the former), playing them out against each other - which would make some sense assuming a Habsburg backing.--2001:A61:260C:C01:9D64:6AAB:C9E4:37FB (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


It occured to me that we might need not subject English readers to intricate Croatian declination rules :) the title history is:

  • 11 June 2008 DIREKTOR m (7,876 bytes) (moved Uskoks to Uskoci: Singular: "Uskok", plural: "Uskoci")
  • 11 May 2006 Deucalionite m (6,344 bytes) (moved Uskok to Uskoks)
  • 2 September 2005 Joy m (1,809 bytes) (Uzkoks moved to Uskok)

The referenced English-language sources that use the term in the title use: "Uskoks", "Oskoks", "Uskoks". The other Wikipedia articles are also using suffixes native to the language used rather than the term origin. I'd go back to a simpler variant in English, too, maybe even singular, because there's little apparent benefit to plural. Thoughts anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Uskoks in popular cultureEdit

Just to mention that I was watching an episode of 'Lovejoy', the old British TV series starring Ian McShane, which featured a plot involving an Uskok holy relic. I had never heard of the Uskoks, and assumed (partly because of the implausible name), that they were pure fiction invented for the purposes of the story. Evidently I was wrong! I wonder if there are any other references to the Uskoks in popular culture, and if so whether it is worth having a section on this? (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uskoks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant evidence and proposal for delete parts of the article which have no evidence in the original historical documentsEdit

"Large numbers of Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans, joined the ranks of the Uskok bands"There is no material evidence which would prove previous citation. There are no historical documents that mention Serbs in the Senj area. In the book "The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" Goffman, Daniel (2002) at page 190. there is no evidence that prove such a claim. (ref: In second source from Davies, Norman (1996). Europe: a history. I did not see what it says on page 561, but without looking in that book there is no evidence for mentioning or migration of Serbians from Serbia to Senj area. For that reason this part of the article is a forgery and I propose that it be removed.Mikola22 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There were a number of different peoples fleeing the Ottomans during the time; some of these people did join the Uskoks and there is evidence showing that in the article. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
You are right and for this reason we must not claim that Large numbers of Serb coming from Serbia when we have no historical sources which prov that migration to the territory of Croatia. Whether among Uskoks exist and smaller groups of Serbs probably yes but there are also and Vlachs, Croats, Albanians, etc.Mikola22 (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources proving migration into the territory of Croatia, specifically Lika. I don't see why it is relevant to have an entire section devoted to the ethnic origins of Uskoks. A few lines in the history section should suffice. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is a chapter in a book or in master thesis (Faculty of History) which deals with the origin of the Senj Uskoks I see no reason not to include that chapter or section in a Wikipedia article. People would like to know what is known for now about the origin of the Uskoks and if this information exists why not present it? As far as migration to Croatia is concerned(from western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area), I know that someone is coming from Bosnia but history records do not mention Serbs in that area or that they come to that area(there are a couple of records but this is for smaller groups) I have not heard about migration from Serbia to Croatia. Otherwise Uskoks exist from Senj to Montenegro, the most famous are the Senj and Klis Uskoks who are also related. Wikipedia article I quote " Large numbers of fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans, joined the ranks of the Uskok bands, therefore this is indefinite because the Uskoks do not belong to one people or to the same area and that is why we need to concretize itMikola22 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I still see no justification for an entire section on "orgins" when there is a history section that describes such things. I moved some parts of the to the History section and erased the rest, as it's redundant. If you have an issue with this, please state it here. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Book that talks about Uskoks from Senj(Catherine Wendy Bracewell) has entire section on "orgins", master's thesis also has that section. I see no reason not to be so in this article. From this article: The Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the early years of the 16th century drove large numbers of ethnic Croats and Serbs from their homes, which in the town of Klis prompted the formation of the Uskok military Large numbers of fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans, joined the ranks of the Uskok bands For Uskoks from Senj area there is no such information or that there would be any Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians etc among them. For this reason that section exist to peoples know exactly(from book which talks about Uskoks) their origin and not to mix Uskoks from Senj with Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Bosnians, Montenegrins etc. And Morlachs has "origin" section. Under "origin" section it can be written about Serbian, Montenegrin, Bulgarian, Bosnian, Albanian etc Uskoks considering that there are also data on Uskoks in those areas even in parts of Croatia that have nothing to do with Senj Uskoks. For this reason that section must exist and that's why is here that peoples know something about the origin of the Uskoks from our areas. That's why "origin" section is in historian book or master's thesis of history departments. Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why it can't be incorporated into the "History" section? I (still) don't see why it warrants such a large, overly-sourced section on its own. It seems excessive and repetitive. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Uskoks" page.