text:
Talk:Central Serbia

Uža or Centralna (Central or Proper)
Just for the record if you type

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Here is a real table, conducted using valid searches

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

Centralna-721

Uza-602

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

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

 * yes it is

Avala 13:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zocky 17:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zapadni deo centralnog dela zemlje. Na to sam mislio.

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

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

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

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

 * I did read the previous discussion, but did not come to the same conclusions as you.

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

Well in official publications of the Serbian government this region is called "Centralna Srbija". So, it is a kind of official use of this name. In the past (during the existence of SFRY), the name "Uža Srbija" was used officially like this. English term "Serbia proper" is a English translation of the name "Uža Srbija", and it simply does not reflect the fact that usage of this name was changed in Serbia. Wikipedia certainly should to respect such change. Also, this google search could show that name "Central Serbia" is quite used in English: PANONIAN  (talk)  11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=central+serbia&btnG=Google+Search

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

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

Given the "modest" content of both articles, it's far from clear that they're scoped in the way you claim (much less that they should be), and certainly not that there's in any way enough distinct material to justify both. Panonian, your opinion on what the title of the merged article is noted, but statements of what you "will not accept" are not in the least helpful. Alai 03:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, on this whole "official name" thing: please see WP:NC(CN).  Alai 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I did said that term "Serbia Proper" is a translation of "Uža Srbija". And here is proof: name "Uža Srbija" was never used before 1945 when Serbia with two autonomous provinces was created. This term was invented to designate part of Serbia that lie outside of the autonomous provinces. This name ("Uža Srbija") was used between 1945 and 1990, when it was replaced with term "Centralna Srbija". The English name "Serbia Proper" also could not to exist before 1945 because before this year, the region that could be designated with that name simply did not existed. So, it is quite obvious that "Serbia proper" is a English translation of the term "Uža Srbija" (or if not a pure translation, then at least English version of this name). Also, these terms "Russia proper" or "China Proper" are names of the groups of regions, not quite similar cases with "Serbia Proper". The important thing is that both names "Central Serbia" and "Serbia Proper" are used in English, so we simply discuss which of the two established English names we will use. But my point is, that who ever invented this term "Serbia Proper", he certainly had in front of him a map of Serbia from 1945 with three marked regions on it: "Vojvodina", "Kosovo" and "Uža Srbija". He obviously thought that name "Uža Srbija" could be best written in English as "Serbia Proper". We must ask this question: what would be if the name "Centralna Srbija" was used for that region from the beginning and if our English translator had another map with name "Centralna Srbija" written instead of "Uža Srbija"? Would he then also translate this as "Serbia Proper" or as "Central Serbia"?. As for the question about Vranje, yes it is in Central Serbia, check any government publication about this, for example this one:
 * http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/Zip/NEP1.pdf

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

Also, by all means "Serbia Proper" is not legacy of the period before 1912, but of the period after 1945, no matter that borders of Serbia before 1912 were similar to the borders of present-day region because before 1912 that area was known simply as "Serbia", not as "Serbia Proper", "Central Serbia", etc. It is correct that Vojvodina and Kosovo were additions to Serbia in 1945 and that is why Serbian name "Uža Serbia" (similar as English "Serbia Proper") was used for the region, but after 55 years (in about 1990), some people came to understand that term "Uža Srbija" reflect only the situation from 1945, but not the current one, so the term was replaced with "Centralna Srbija". As for Šumadija region, it is the Central part of Central Serbia, but it is not Central Serbia. Term "Uža Srbija" is not used any more in the Serbian government publications, it might be still used unofficially by certain individuals, but I simply saying what is official and what is not. Here is the example: Maybe you would like to call the language you speak by some other name, but there is official name of that language used by the government, same thing with the name of the region. Also, English readers would easily know what "Central Serbia" is since they can to see that on the map posted in the article. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again: wikipedia practice and guidelines are to use the common name (in English).  Not to use the official name, or a name they can "easily know" what it is after looking at a map, or anything but the common name.  Googling for the two gives a roughly equal number of hits, though it's clear that many references to "Central Serbia" (or indeed simply to "central Serbia") are in the sense that Duja suggests, not in the sense of this article.  It would be preferable to have some information on what "reputable sources" (national and international organisations, news outlets, etc) use.  Alai 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, try also to see how many google hits you will find for "Gypsies" and "Roma people" key words. No matter how many google links are there, it would not be appropriate to name Wikipedia article about this ethnic group "Gypsies". I do not think that google hits are something on which we should base our naming policy. By the way, what about these google links for "Serbia Proper", which say: "that the proper approach to Serbia is to..." :) PANONIAN   (talk)  00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just to address Alai's point about "Serbia proper" dating to after 1945, not so; I've just done a quick search of an electronic database of the London Times and have found uses of this term dating back to 1915, e.g. "Serbia Proper Occupied", an editorial of 1916 about how the inhabitants of Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia etc. yearn for "union with Serbia proper" (how times change!) etc. So clearly the term has a long usage in English. I'd guess that it was in use well before 1915, as the Times' writers evidently thought their readers would know what it meant. I don't have time to research this properly now - I'm actually on holiday at the moment - but I'll look into it when I get back home. -- ChrisO 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Panonian's point, as I didn't make such a claim. Note, however, that what was meant by "Serbia proper" was very likely to be significantly different, as were the borders of the then kingdom of Serbia.  (Not to mention there being the small matter of a war on at the time, or indeed previous principalities, voidvodships, and what not prior to that.)  Alai 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that term "Serbia Proper" could be used as early as 1915, but in that time that name was obviously used for this region:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia1913.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * Does anyone have a version of the first map WITH Kosovo?Khajidha (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * File:Serbia01.png. -- Jao (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

flag
Does central Serbia have a flag? (LAz17 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)).
 * No, it never had a flag. PANONIAN  09:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this region still exist?
Well, Central Serbia never had its own government or any other local institutions and it functioned rather like an statistical region. For example, 2002 census results published by the Statistical Office of Serbia are listing population for Central Serbia. However, first results of 2011 census (which could be seen here) are not listing Central Serbia at all. Instead, this publication is listing 3 newly formed Statistical regions of Serbia: Region of Belgrade, Region of Šumadija and Western Serbia, and Region of South and East Serbia. So, it seems that Central Serbia officially does not exist any more. Anyway, this should be clarified by further evidences, and if that is truth, then this should be transformed into an historical article. PANONIAN 09:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed article in accordance with new reality. I think that presented official statistical publication is a clear evidence that Central Serbia officially no longer exist. If it still exists, new statistical regions would be listed in that publication as parts of Central Serbia. However, they are listed instead Central Serbia (which is not mentioned at all in that publication). Note that in previous statistical publications of that kind, Central Serbia was listed together with Vojvodina and Kosovo. In this last publication, we have Vojvodina and Kosovo, but instead Central Serbia, we have 3 new regions. PANONIAN  12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Central, Narrow, or Serbia Proper is a geopolitical and cultural reference to the region in that part of Serbia, much like the Balkans are for Southeastern Europe. It cannot simply cease to exist as it is part of Serbian nomenclature. The statistical regions are an entirely different matter, purely administrative for the purpose of (as the name suggests) gathering statistical data. Buttons (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Central Serbia was too used as administrative term in official publications from 1945 to 2009 (and it was too nothing more than a statistical region). In recent publications, it is not used any more and it is replaced with 3 new statistical regions, see: http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2011/prvi_rezultati.pdf Also, do you have some source or evidence that can support claim that it is still used as "geopolitical and cultural reference to the region"? PANONIAN  08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is an official source that confirms that Central Serbia does not exist any more (web page of the Government of Serbia):
 * http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=45625
 * http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=20617

Quotation:

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

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

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

English translation:

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

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

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

PANONIAN 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Reverted. Central Serbia still exists, and is fine and well. Everybody calls it "central Serbia", on the news and in the weather forecast, and knows what it is. It has never been a subdivision, so it does not need this awful "Infobox former subdivision". Just like, for example, Mačva still exists, although it has never been an official division of anything.
 * Yes, Central Serbia used to be a statistical region, and now it is not. However, this is duly mentioned in the article, and is hardly relevant for existence. Barely anybody know what those statistical regions are used for, let alone where their borders lie, and they should not be used to define more than they are created for: bare statistical borders used by the Census Bureau. No such user (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No such user, I do not agree with your last changes here. Do you have any source that says that Central Serbia officially still exist? What you mean by "Everybody calls it central Serbia"? Who is everybody? Please say who exactly call it like that and where. I presented sources which are clearly showing that official state institutions do not using this name any more. If some people still use this name somewhere it is only because they do not know about recent administrative changes. You agreed that "Central Serbia used to be a statistical region, and now it is not" and it is all what it was. It was statistical region whose name was used in former government publications and today it is nothing. It does not exist. If you claim that it still exist then please provide reliable sources that saying that. You also removed references that clearly showed that government of Serbia do not use name Central Serbia in its official publications any more and that there are now officially 3 statistical regions instead. Can you please present sources that support your view? As for infobox, I think that article about former statistical region should have infobox, but I can live without it. PANONIAN  13:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Mačva example, that case is not even similar. Mačva, Šumadija, Banat and other historical/geographical regions are exactly that: historical/geographical regions with no political implications. Contrary to this, Central Serbia was fully political issue - it described political division of Serbia during one period in history and nothing else. It is not (and was not) geographical, historical or "natural" region of any kind. Valid and reliable sources should be presented for any opposite claim. PANONIAN  13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You started from the premise that something has to be declared in official sources in order to exist. I question that premise. Going back to a 2008 version of this article, it defines the subject as "Central Serbia [...], is the region of Serbia that lies outside the autonomous province of Vojvodina and Kosovo. The region of Central Serbia is not an administrative division of Serbia as such; it is under the direct jurisdiction of the republic authorities. " So if something has never been an administrative division of Serbia, how did it cease to exist? In my view, looking at this entity solely from the viewpoint of legal framework is wrong. It probably was used by the Statistical Office, and now they use the statistical regions, but that is really a minor use of the term, that is largely unknown to the general public. I would further agree that the Statistical regions of Serbia are unknown for the general public and, while they should have an article, they should not get a prominent place in Wikipedia because they are even more (at least now) obscure term. I would bet my money that 90% of residents of central Serbia would not know which statistical region they live in. On the other hand, usage of the term "Central Serbia" to refer to the subject of this article -- a geographical area of convenience, with clear borders but not government of any kind, is still present in the media and in the popular perception. This grouping is also used for various organizations, to define their area of interest. So we have it referred to in Ombudsman's site, mentioned by the Minister of defense, used for reporting of elections, and on weather forecast . We also have various sporting organizations , , ,.
 * The bottom line: Central Serbia is a concept, much more than an administrative area. It is wrong to talk about the concept which still exist in past tense. See also Buttons's point, above. No such user (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was not administrative division, but it was statistical region, so it ceded to exist as an statistical region. The sole purpose of usage of term "Central Serbia" by state authorities was political and statistical. After 3 new statistical regions were introduced, political and statistical purpose of Central Serbia fully disappeared. I can agree that usage of term "Central Serbia" is still present in some media and in the popular perception, but is this valid source on which an Wikipedia article should be based? You said by yourself that new Statistical regions of Serbia are "unknown for the general public" and it is the obvious reason why term is still present in some media. Official sources are certainly more valuable for Wikipedia than "popular perception". In another words, Wikipedia articles should be based on official sources, in which case this article should speak about official statistical region named Central Serbia which ceased to exist in 2009. We can say in some part of this article that term is still used in some media, but that is all. We should not say that this region still exist only because its name is still used in some media (and little example from history: ancient and medieval authors used names of some ancient lands long after these lands ceded to exist). Regarding sources that you mentioned, there is logical explanation why term is used in each of them. For example, this source which speaks about "ethnic structure of Central Serbia" obviously used data from 2002 census, where results were listed for Central Serbia. Results of new 2011 census will list 3 new regions instead and therefore, this source would be different. This source is published in 2010 when new statistical regions were just formed, etc, etc. Also, sporting organizations, weather forecast and election result reports are not really reliable sources. I can agree that statement of minister Vučić is valid source, but it is questionable whether minister here described official position of the state or demonstrated that "the Statistical regions of Serbia that are unknown for the general public" are unknown for him as well. I think that official site of government of Serbia about territorial organization of the country should be primary source here: http://www.srbija.gov.rs/pages/article.php?id=45625 All other sources should be evaluated only in this light. PANONIAN  18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking about past tense, I do not see that this sentence is wrong in any way: "was a name officially used for part of Serbia before 2009." Sentence refer to official usage of this term in past tense and do not say that term is not still used in some media or unofficially. We can upgrade this with data about current unofficial usage, of course. PANONIAN  18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing: the proof that state of Serbia does not officially recognize existence of Central Serbia is this primary statistical division north-south: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Датотека:NUTS1.PNG (In this division, the city of Belgrade, which was formerly part of Central Serbia is now statistically joined with Vojvodina and not with two other statistical regions that were formed from Central Serbia). PANONIAN  18:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I strongly reject the notion that something has to be defined in official sources in order to exist. Not only the official sources are the source of truth or source of Wikipedia. However, I think our dispute could be resolved by somewhat rescoping this article to revolve around terminology, i.e. to describe how terms 'Central Serbia' and 'Serbia proper' come into being and what they (used to) denote. Compare e.g. Macedonia (terminology). I think that would lead to shortening of the article down to 'Name' and 'History' sections, because all other sections (administrative divisions, geography, cities) are already well-covered in other articles. What do you say? No such user (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 * But Central Serbia was official territorial unit of Serbia before 2009, so it was defined as such in official sources. We should have an article about this former official territory and that article should include all aspects of that territory - districts, cities, ethnic groups, etc. So, I think that we should rather write another article that will deal specifically with terminology and we should keep this article as an article about historical territorial unit of Serbia. Or we can simply add new section to this article where terminology will be described. However, I must express concern that all post-2010 sources that mention term Central Serbia are most likely doing that because authors of these sources are not aware that Central Serbia was replaced with 3 new statistical regions. PANONIAN  06:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Just how "official" it was? Please make up your mind. It was just used as a statistical category for census, and it does not have any sort of government of its own. Even if you want to treat it as a former country subdivision (which, again, it simply wasn't), we already have all that information in Geography of Serbia, List of cities in Serbia, Administrative divisions of Serbia, Regions of Serbia, History of Serbia, why keep it duplicated? We generally provide geographic and economy information only in the main (=modern) articles for the territory, and mention just as much history as the period covers. I really do not share your attitude towards "officialdom", and especially that it is particularly relevant for Wikipedia. And writing yet another article on this topic is a huge overkill. Just as you argued on the Talk:Nedić's Serbia that the notion of "Serbia" did not cease to exist just because Kingdom of Yugoslavia changed its administrative division, excluding a territory named "Serbia", please be consistent and apply the same reasoning to Central Serbia: it is a well-defined, unofficial territory, still called that because of practical and traditional reasons. Rest assured that people will not start talking about "Central Serbia" anytime soon, just because some law on territorial organization said otherwise. No such user (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discuss issues from my topic ban, so let focus on Central Serbia issue only. I do not agree that issue is covered well in other articles. It is partly covered in those articles, but do you suggest that readers should read some 5 articles to get the full picture about this? I do not see what is wrong to have this article that will fully cover all things related to Central Serbia. Yes, it was a former subdivision of Serbia and it is really not important did it had its own government or not. I mean, what is a problem to have article about Central Serbia as about former territorial division? Speaking about current usage of this term: no, it is not "still called like that because of practical and traditional reasons" - name is used today only because of stupidity of people who use it and who do not know about recent administrative changes. And there is nothing "practical and traditional" in it, but my topic ban do not allow me to speak about reasons for creation of this entity. However, I personally think that new territorial division of Serbia is much better and less politically controversial and we do not have to bring Central Serbia back from history just because some people do not know about recent territorial changes and are not able to see dubious political nature of former territorial structure. PANONIAN  04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Provinces
Why does the lede call Kosovo an "autonomous province"? This is fantasy; Kosovo declared independence several years ago. If the article is meant to reflect Belgrade's POV rather than reality, perhaps we could manage that in some way, but we need to frame it more carefully instead of presenting it as fact. bobrayner (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Officially by Serbian constitution, Kosovo is autonomous province of Serbia. That's fact. Get over it. We have Kosovo-note, and that's it. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 09:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the Serbian constitution departs from reality, our articles should diverge from what the Serbian constitution says.
 * But, even if we take a constitutional argument, you still fail. Presumably you know that the constitution of 1903 required a Grand National Assembly before adding territory like Kosovo into Serbia; but no such assembly was ever held. bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia should not "fix" what your deep POV think is an error, but only follow fact. Fact is that Kosovo is part of Serbia per Serbian constitution. That may be (and it is) disputed, but its still the fact that must not be ignored. Same for this. This is district of Serbia, and not RoK. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Kosovo declared independence in 2008. You know that; I know that; countless reliable sources say so; our articles should reflect that fact. Just look at the Chinese constitution; as far as that document is concerned, Taiwan is still part of China - but we don't change Taiwan articles on that basis. The constitution of Libya insisted that it was a democracy and that the people were free and sovereign. To the extent that the Serbian constitution departs from reality, our articles should diverge from what the Serbian constitution says. bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you have anything better to do, Bob, or are you just out to push Pristina's agenda? 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to ensure that articles reflect what sources say; unfortunately your edits seem to do the contrary. Perhaps we should have an RfC over whether this article should pretend that Kosovo is part of Serbia? I think we all know what would happen when independent editors get involved; the question is whether you stop reverting before or after that point. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have to make a mountain out of every molehill? First, "Central Serbia" as described in the article is not just a vaguely defined "central region", but clearly delineated part of the country, bordering Kosovo and Vojvodina, and having such borders since 1945. Second, since the article describes an entity which belongs to internal organization of Serbia, and Kosovo is only peripheral, it is logical to refer to Kosovo as a "province" in a single word, since it undoubtedly so was from 1945 to 1999. Third, since Kosovo proclaimed independence in 2008, that should be duly noted, and does not even have to be referenced -- it's a fairly widely known thing, isn't it? No such user (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work, No such user. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Central Serbia as opposed to core territories of early modern period 1804-1918
What needs to be remembered here is that Central Serbia exists as it does as a result of being carved into that shape rather than ever having been created purposely. For example, in the south it borders Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia, all of these are post-World War II creations if looking at their current shapes. In the north it borders Vojvodina. Vojvodina is not entirely the land that the Kingdom of Serbia acquired in late 1918 before joining the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes because Vojvodina only constitutes the bulk of Serbian Panonia which is outside of Belgrade's municipalities. In other words, Zemun, Novi Beograd, Surčin (where the airport is), the section of Palilula left of the Danube are all Central Serbia but were only as much a part of the "core" as the rest of the territory left of Sava and Danube (Vojvodina). --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the case with pretty much any territory that is not defined solely by natural boundaries: its geographical extents today are almost certainly different than the ones of 100, 200 or 500 years ago. Arguing that it's now not the same territory in the lead, which is supposed to give a broad overview, is unnecessary nitpicking. Thus, I disagree that extents of Central Serbia are substantially larger than those of Principality of Serbia to prevent the practical identification, but I won't insist on the previous formulation; still, the current wording "Central Serbia contains the core..." leaves a lot to be desired. No such user (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A pair of pictures is worth two thousand words: No such user (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 * My apologies NSU, I forgot about this discussion because I didn't add it to my watchlist. Well I am all in favour of rephrasing "contains the core" if you feel it leaves much to be desired. I think the key issue here is that what Serbia was in 1804 (non-existent) and what it became in 1918 are two very different things. The early years were marked by developments, revolts, autonomy, soon expanding and becoming de facto independence, eventually recognised and by 1918 just before the point it united with the first Yugoslav state, Serbia had reached its peak. At no time since 1918 has any entity calling itself "Serbia" been more than it was in December 1918 when it temporarily had a coast due to its taking of Montenegro. So the section may need to be expanded, or broken into bits. I just don't know what best to suggest, but I am all in favour of a change. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Central Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf

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

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

title: Talk:Central Serbia


text:
Copperplate

Copperplate (or copper-plate, copper plate) may refer to:
 * Any form of intaglio printing using a metal plate (usually copper), or the plate itself
 * Engraving
 * Etching
 * Copperplate script, a style of handwriting and typefaces derived from it
 * Copperplate Gothic, a glyphic typeface designed by Frederic Goudy in 1901
 * Indian copper plate inscriptions, ancient Indian records of royal lineages, land grants etc.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Copperplate


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder at Movary Mansion

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Murder at Movary Mansion.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

can't find anything about it on google. Maximus Rex 18:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks non-notable to me. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ad for non-notable. Delete. - David Gerard 20:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minimum=unverifiable. More likely fiction. Even the playwrite's site doesn't mention it. Niteowlneils 21:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If the supposed author's site hasn't heard of it, it probably ain't true. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:43, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Client (computing)

Client is a computer that gets information from another computer called server in the context of client–server model of computer networks. The server is often (but not always) on another computer system, in which case the client accesses the service by way of a network.

A client is a computer or a program that, as part of its operation, relies on sending a request to another program or a computer hardware or software that accesses a service made available by a server (which may or may not be located on another computer). For example, web browsers are clients that connect to web servers and retrieve web pages for display. Email clients retrieve email from mail servers. Online chat uses a variety of clients, which vary on the chat protocol being used. Multiplayer video games or online video games may run as a client on each computer. The term "client" may also be applied to computers or devices that run the client software or users that use the client software.

A client is part of a client–server model, which is still used today. Clients and servers may be computer programs run on the same machine and connect via inter-process communication techniques. Combined with Internet sockets, programs may connect to a service operating on a possibly remote system through the Internet protocol suite. Servers wait for potential clients to initiate connections that they may accept.

The term was first applied to devices that were not capable of running their own stand-alone programs, but could interact with remote computers via a network. These computer terminals were clients of the time-sharing mainframe computer.

Types
In one classification, client computers and devices are either thick clients, thin clients, or diskless nodes.

Thick
A thick client, also known as a rich client or fat client, is a client that performs the bulk of any data processing operations itself, and does not necessarily rely on the server. The personal computer is a common example of a fat client, because of its relatively large set of features and capabilities and its light reliance upon a server. For example, a computer running an art program (such as Krita or Sketchup) that ultimately shares the result of its work on a network is a thick client. A computer that runs almost entirely as a standalone machine save to send or receive files via a network is by a standard called a workstation.

Thin

A thin client is a minimal sort of client. Thin clients use the resources of the host computer. A thin client generally only presents processed data provided by an application server, which performs the bulk of any required data processing. A device using web application (such as Office Web Apps) is a thin client.

Diskless node
A diskless node is a mixture of the above two client models. Similar to a fat client, it processes locally, but relies on the server for storing persistent data. This approach offers features from both the fat client (multimedia support, high performance) and the thin client (high manageability, flexibility). A device running an online version of the video game Diablo III is an example of diskless node.

title: Client (computing)


text:
IASA

IASA may refer to:

 * The Iranian American Sport & Culture Association, a Los Angeles-based sports diplomacy nonprofit organization
 * The IETF Administrative Support Activity, an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC)
 * The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
 * The International Association of Scientologists Administrations
 * The International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives
 * The International Aviation Safety Assessment Program of the US FAA
 * The Irish Amateur Swimming Association
 * The Israel Arts and Science Academy, Jerusalem, Israel
 * Institución Atlética Sud América, football club from Montevideo in Uruguay

title: IASA


text:
Talk:Ahmed Chalabi

Initial comments
I made no change to the content; I only broke one paragraph into two and moved one sentence from a paragraph to its own paragraph (as it wasn't close enough to the subject of the paragraph it was in.) In effect, I guess I broke onew long paragraph into three shorter paragraphs.

 * I undid some vandalism to the Introduction. It read "Chalabi is a controversial devil figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq..." The devil part is obvious vandalism. --24.139.46.213 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 08MAR10

I'm concerned that the section I worked on seems a little unprofessional. First it discusses misleading claims by the INC/Chalabi in strong language, and then offers as an example what to a reader probably seems a minor error in detail.

That is, the significance of the Salman Pak claims was that Iraq was purportedly training terrorists to hijack planes there, not what sort of plane they were using in their training. The error in plane model seems a trivial "gotcha" which is outweighed by the text's apparent confirmation that Iraq was training terrorists to hijack planes there.

To most people, this is like arguing about what color their uniforms were when they were being trained to hijack planes.

I have little doubt that some better example of a false claim by Chalabi can be offered. The one offered here is not impressive.

The ironic thing is, if the claim was simply made here that Chalabi and the INC made misleading and false claims, without offering any example in the text, I would have no beef with that. M. E. Smith

Rei, while the government and media's various claims about Chalabi deserve as much attention from the article as you or anyone else is willing to give them, it is also necessary that the article not state disputed and controversial views as plain fact. Everyking 18:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmm... I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is contested. Are you saying the fact that he provided information to the OSP is contested?  Or that the words "major portion" are contested?  Or that the categories that the information covered are contested?  And if so, by whom?  I mean, if you can show a fairly legitimate source contesting this, I would be happy to use your wording.  I haven't seen an official admission of this, but I haven't seen anyone contest it either, and there have been many unofficial admissions.  If things are only uncontested when there is an official admission of it, then (for example) the addictiveness of tobacco would have been "contested" until the 90s. Rei 19:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * An official (or unofficial, depending on what game they happen to be playing) "admission" is not enough to say the matter in question is finally settled. We do not accept the claims of the government or the media as simple fact as a matter of blind faith, unless it is something that is not seriously contested, or we have no reason to think it is contested. You stated as fact that Chalabi provided the info, and more importantly, that US intelligence relied on the info. I think that is a spurious claim that ought to be qualified by directly attributing it to those who claim it. Everyking 19:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ...Which is why I added references. And, as I mentioned, I'll gladly get you as many as you want.  Rei 19:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Rei, providing references does not turn a falsehood into truth. Did you read anything I wrote? This sentence: "In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda." states as fact something that I believe is false. You can add a hundred references; if it ain't true, they won't help. That's why I suggest either using my wording, or directly attribute some of these claims using your references. For example: "According to so-and-so, under his guidance the INC provided..." instead of a simple assertion of fact, as it is presently phrased. Everyking 20:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, given that, I would have to say, "According to multiple members of the Office Of Special Plans interviewed by multiple sources on multiple occasions...". I'd prefer the current version better, but if you like that better, go for it.  You say you believe it is false.  Can you provide any evidence for such a view?  If you cannot, then it isn't "contested".  Heck, even Chalabi's people have talked about the evidence they provided.  One of his men, code-named "curveball", has been all over the press recently.  Surely you're familiar with this.  With what do you contest it?  I'm quite curious. Rei 21:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This isn't black and white. Philisophically speaking, the only way I know Chalabi even exists is because of "reports" -- and on the other hand, there are loony "reports" that the Israelis flew the planes in 9/11. It isn't obvious when a statement crosses the line to where we can confidently state something without a "reports" weasel-word. In this case, I think it's really borderline. We have multiple, independent varifications, and I can't imagine it's not true, but I think some people might try to dispute it. So I think either wording -- that he gave the info, or that there are reports that he gave the info -- is acceptable. Quadell (talk) 21:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think that was my doing. I thought it had been officially recognized that much of the bad info received by the Office for Special Planning had come from Chalabi. When I re-read "The Lie Factory", from Mother Jones, it looks like it has been confirmed by numerous off-the-record sources, but not officially admitted per se. So my bad. Quadell (talk) 18:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

To add to the confusion on this issue, note the following from a Washington Post article:

 * "The vast majority of reports of his proximity to and influence on administration policy have been greatly exaggerated," said a senior administration official involved in Iraq policy who knows Chalabi. "The reality is that he was among a wide variety of Iraqi figures who made the case to an array of American officials over a period of time for the liberation of the Iraqi people."

 * Yet no Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics.

So an administration official denies that he was the primary source for bad info, but the Post has no problem stating as fact that he was.

Then note this caption in a CNN article:

 * Ahmed Chalabi is thought to have been a source of intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD.

Talk about weasel words! I don't think there's a consensus as to whether we can call it a fact yet or not, that he provided most of the bad info that led us into war. He clearly did. I just don't know if we can say it yet. Quadell (talk) 14:19, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * We need to have more rigorous standards than "He clearly did...but we can't call it a fact." A vast web of lies has been spun about this war, but we are working on an encyclopedia; we must approach all the claims that are put forward with caution. What if we had just claimed before the war that it was plain fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because the government and media made such a forceful case that it did? We'd look pretty silly now, wouldn't we? Everyking 14:47, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a difference between saying that he himself was a major source, and that the INC was. It is true that Chalabi's personal involvement has been overblown, and I have made several modifications to the article to point out that it was his organization, not he himself, who was providing this information.  But it is essentially undeniable that the INC was a major source of these stories, and I can provide reference after reference (again, just name your number).  I'd like to ask again: does anyone have anything that says that the *INC* (which was led by Chalabi) didn't play a major role in pushing these allegations?

 * Just as a side note - before the war, I was debating against people who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and provided tons of references (just like I'm offering to do here), so that was probably a bad example that you picked. :)  Not everyone fell for the government's transparent yarn, hook line and sinker.  You just had to read documents from the IAEA and UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, read articles from places like the Biosecurity Journal and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, trace back the claims to individuals (for example, I found that a number of the claims about some of the horrors of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs were being pushed by the same INC member who had claimed that not only did Iraq have nuclear weapons, but had already tested them - which is physically impossible, since we monitor rival states for electromagnetic evidence of nuclear explosions)... it just all fell apart when you looked into it.  And about half of the reports traced back to the INC.  Rei 16:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are right that the myth of WMDs could be easily dismissed before the war, but the myth of Ahmed Chalabi can also be dismissed. I dismissed both before the war, as I dismiss both now. But my point was that the government/media was pushing the WMD line on Americans in early 2003, and it has been pushing the Chalabi myth, too, yet you think you can take the media's word for it when they explain this myth now, in 2004. Anybody could have provided "references" to back up the allegations of WMDs in early 2003, and plenty of people were. You cannot just pick some references to cite and say the matter is settled. That contradicts the whole spirit of NPOV. We are not here to determine finally what the truth is; we are simply here to present things objectively, without making judgements to be imposed upon our readers. Everyking 17:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I also want to a) question the bias of this article, but b) throw forward this quote from The Huffington Post of Friday, September 16, 2005 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/hooked-on-anonymity_b_7355.html), from columnist Nora Ephron. When speaking on the New York Times' over-use of anonymous sources she quoted Ahmed Chalabi, who should have said, "I’m talking to you on condition of anonymity because I hope to plant false information about weapons of mass destruction in your very powerful newspaper in order to con the United States government into going to war against Saddam Hussein so I can return to Iraq and become part of the new government and steal a whole bunch more money than I already have." Someone should work that quote into the article. And yes, this article is biased against Mr. Chalabi, who, while I believe that he lied about WMDs etc. to get power, until that's proven we can't state that as unquestionable fact. Meaning, as long as there are reasonable people who disagree, such people need to be acknowledged. Mrcolj 14:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

-

Many supposedly held him up as a main hope for democracy in Iraq,

Many did hold him up. Why say supposedly? Could we rephrase this please? Some such thing as

 * Chalabi had many supporters in the United States who held him up as a chmapion of democracy in Iraq.

I would also like to see explicit mention in this article of OpEd writers unwavering support for this man, particularly Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post who came out repeatedly in his defense. I'll do it myself if no one cares to bite. CSTAR 15:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There's also Christopher Hitchens, who defended Chalabi in Slate. I look forward to your additonal work, Cstar

Could we break this up into sections? CSTAR 21:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this guy look like Palatine from the Star Wars saga?

edit statement for clarity?

 * "Curveball" – the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed hundreds of pages of bogus "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails. However, this assertion made by reporters from Newsweek (Michael Isikoff), Knight-Ridder (Jonathan Landay), and the Los Angeles Times (Bob Drogin) has been proven completely false.[9]

As written, this statement implies that reporters claimed that "Curveball" was offering bogus information, but that claim was later proved false. I would like to change this statement to read instead:

 * "Curveball" – the brother of one of Chalabi's top lieutenants – fed hundreds of pages of "firsthand" descriptions of mobile biological weapons factories on wheels and rails, but these assertions were later demonstrated to be false [9].

the term neoconservative
I take issue with the use of the term neoconservative as used in this document. I understand this to be a factual base, and we all know neocon is a derogative term, and therefore it's a political term. You are essentially labeling the people in the pentagon without further at least backing up the use of the term. Couldnt that simply be changed to "prominent people in the pentagon?" Or at least, those "neocons" should be listed. Jviehe 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never understood neoconservative to be a derogatory term. Much like I've never understood liberal to be a derogatory term. That some people use as such terms, does not make them such terms, and obviously, neoconservative if it is to replaced with something, should be a replaced with a synonoum for it.

Chalabi on TV
The Journal Report November 13, 2005 "The Chalabi Comeback" Episode #232. Ahmed Chalabi, deputy prime minister of Iraq, visits Washington, D.C.; Republican candidates.

Chalabi says Rob Silverman report page 108 says he had little influence on (american foreign policy??) Chalabi says his organization only provided three people. The first one was taken by the US never to be seen again.

Chalabi say american troops can leave by 2006.

Chalabi is an "Escrow"?
I don't understand the last sentence of the introduction. It says that Chalabi is an "escrow," which the American Heritage online dictionary defines as "Money, property, a deed, or a bond put into the custody of a third party for delivery to a grantee only after the fulfillment of the conditions specified." The Wikipedia definition provided by the link echoes this definition, but neither seems to provide any circumstance under which the word might be used to describe a person. (Unless the article means "escrow agent", but it's not clear how Chalabi fills that role.) The linked CNN article doesn't use the term at all.

Could someone provide some clarification / excise the term? Thanks.

I took it out - it really makes no sense... 62.141.24.81 18:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

opinion
i think the author meant the french word escroc, which is a crook.

Chalabi under investigation... or not
There is another garbled phrase in the first paragraph (introduced in this edit []: "currently under investigation by several government sources". A "source" is a journalist's informant. For this phrase to be literally correct, the sources would have to be in the government and investigating Chalabi personally. However, as I recall, the people who put it about that Chalabi was under investigation were retired intelligence professionals, no longer in government employ, and they did not claim to be doing the investigation themselves... I would also be interested to know if there is any evidence that Chalabi is under official investigation, as some of his supporters say it's just a smear campaign coming from his long-term enemies within the US government. Crudely, the rivalry is said to be between CIA/State/Allawi/INA and DIA/Pentagon/Chalabi/INC. (The INA is Allawi's old group, the Iraqi National Accord.) Mporter 03:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahmed not Achmed
I have repeatedly heard Ahmed Chalabi referred to as "Achmed" and I'm assuming it is a mistake. I know nothing about Arabic and Persian names, but I imagine that this is an error which seldom gets corrected. Could this article note the mistake (if it is one) in order to specify the correct spelling and prounciation of his name?

 * The only sensible transcription is "Ahmed" (or possibly "Ahmad") - Arabic has two /h/ sounds, one of them identical with the English, the other not. This is the other one. There's no equivalent sound in English (nor in any European language so far as I know), and thereefore no letter in the Latin alphabet to represent it. So /h/ will do. As for his other names, Abdel Hadi should properly be one word (how can you be "the servant of", which is what Abdel means, without being the servant of someone/thing?). His last name, Chalabi, is interesting. There's no /ch/ sound in Arabic, and therefore no letter in the Arabic alphabet to represent it. But there is a /ch/ sound in the Iraqi dialect of Arabic. You find it in words like /simich/, meaning "fish" - which is /samak/ in, for example, Egyptian. I vaguely remember /kalb/ (Egyptian /kelb/) might also be pronounced /chelb/. Anyway, the actual spelling would be /Jelebi/ (or /Jalabi/). I find it odd that this results in Iraqi /Chalabi/, as jim (the name of that particular letter, representing a soft /j/ sound) usually turns into a /k/ or /g/ sound in Iraqi, depending on surrounding sounds. Or maybe I'm wrong. PiCo 10:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Chalabi is a common, if not obvious to English speakers, transliteration of the word Shalabi, meaning roughly "gentleman." It was presumably an honorific given in Ottoman times and then converted into a surname. The Arabic letter should be converted from jim to shin. If you wanted to do an academic transliteration of his other name, it would be `Abd al-Hadi, but 1)Abdul or Abdel, even though it's nonsense Arabic, is the commonly accepted way of writing names of this type in Western languages, and 2) the convention is to let people who have an established way of spelling their names in Roman script use whatever spelling they want. --AG 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * There are three "h" sounds in Modern Standard Arabic (known as "Fuss-ha"). The first is an aspirated, very breathy "h," which is the letter used in Chalabi's first name, Ahmed, as well as other common names such as Muhammad or Mahmoud. The second is a hard "h" sound produced in the back of the mouth/top of the throat that sounds somewhat like the "ch" in the English colloquialism "blech," and is usually written "kh." Although Farsi (aka Persian) is a different language than Arabic, it uses an almost identical script and thus this hard "h" is used in the name Ayatollah Khomeini. Lastly, there is a third "h" sound in Arabic, written differently than the first two (which are similar in appearance). This "h" is usually pronounced the same as we would in English, i.e. "heather" or "heat." 169.253.4.21 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Evan

Chalabi's INC and the Plame affair
Please note this piece, naming Chalabi as one of the four 'prime suspects':

 * En Italie, le parlement vient de conclure une étude sur les origines et les conséquences des faux, et selon certaines sources, le rapport mentionne parmi les principaux suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi et Francis Brookes.

 * In Italy, the Parliament comes to conclude a study on the origins and the consequences from the forgeries, and according to certain sources, the report/ratio mentions among the principal suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes.

And Perle, in October 2002, with this surprising admission:

 * "The I.N.C. has been without question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam Hussein," said Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to the Pentagon and an admirer of Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. "What the agency has learned in recent months has come largely through the I.N.C.'s efforts despite indifference of the C.I.A."

And there's this: Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime (Filed: 19/02/2004)

 * An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty pre-war intelligence to Washington said yesterday his information about Saddam Hussein's weapons, even if discredited, had achieved the aim of persuading America to topple the dictator.

 * Ahmad Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by US intelligence agents. But many American officials now blame Mr Chalabi for providing intelligence that turned out to be false or wild exaggerations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

 * Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."

 * {...} US officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of false intelligence, the claim that Saddam Hussein had mobile biological weapons laboratories, had come from a major in the Iraqi intelligence service made available by the INC.

 * US officials at first found the information credible and the defector passed a lie-detector test. But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been "coached by the INC".

 * He failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable.

But analysts missed the warning, and the mobile laboratory story remained firmly established in the catalogue of alleged Iraqi violations until months after the overthrow of Saddam.

Also, there's Dowd's column, "Woman of Mass Destruction", about Judith Miller (one of the two reporters who did time for the Plame affair):

 * Judy's stories about WMD fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that former Senator Bob Graham dubbed "incestuous amplification." Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists. truthout's cache

 * I still see no reference to Plame or the Plame Affair. Every one Judith Miller mentioned in her long career is not part of the Plame story.--Mr j galt 06:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me restate it for you.

 * "The I.N.C. has been without question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam Hussein," said Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to the Pentagon and an admirer of Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. "What the agency has learned in recent months has come largely through the I.N.C.'s efforts despite indifference of the C.I.A."

 * What did 'the agency learn' 'despite indifference of the C.I.A.', prior to October, 2002? That's right. The Niger claims. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt
An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Question to be answered?
Question to be answered: Chalabi is listed in the Wiki Article "Iraqi Transitional Government" as a Deputy Prime Minister, yet this article reads as if he is no longer part of the Iraqi Government. I suggest you review this and make an adjustment, even if it is a short paragraph at the end to state: "Chalabi was (elected|appointed) as Deputy Prime Minister on (date) with responsibilities (whatever they are).

Thanks

Mike (Mcrawford01) Mcrawford01 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Too bad
That the Islamic Army In Iraq didnt succeed in assasinating him, they came so close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

USA bias
This article tends to veer toward a proxy of USA political debates. While these issues are important, they should not be at the expense of the treatment of the subject from a more non-USA perspective. See also WikiProject Countering systemic bias. —  AjaxSmack   07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Well he spent much of his life in the U.S., and arguably most of his notability stems from his actions in the U.S. advocating for invasion. Is there a specific example of your issue with the article? CKCortez (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Iranian affiliation

 * formatted Listing Port (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to add that Chalabi was an Iranian asset. This is fairly well known by those in intelligence circles, has been reported in some papers and even cited in some recent books. I first heard about a year ago in a letter from Richard Sale and Milt Bearden to Col. Pat Lang.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/richard_sale_on.html

Reproduced here with the permission of Richard Sale and Milt Bearden. Richard informs me that all of this was "on the record." pl

--

"Dear Pat:

I have been busy working on the Balkans, but wanted to provide some data about Chalabi and Iran.

According to more than half a dozen CIA operatives, including former clandestine DO officials, "Agency people became aware that Chalabi had probably been a long-time agent for Iran," in the words of one. These sources, including Whitley Bruner, say that Chalabi was long ago working for Iran in Lebanon, even before the agency recruited him in 1991 and stuck him in as head of the INC. Bruner said of Chalabi: "He never gave the agency any intel on Iran, never submitted to being debriefed.' adding, "He was Iran’s guy." Bruner and others claim that Chalabi "wanted to start low-intensity war with Iraq. He hoped we would get sucked in." The plan was that the INC would "appeal to US benefactors and we would rescue our proxies." Former CIA agent, Bob Baer who went into Kurdistan in 1994, said that Chalabi always came into Kurdistan from Iran, where he had a villa. He said Chalabi was very close to Iranians, and covert operators said IRG folk were often at his house in Salauddin. The INC was totally penetrated by Iranian and Iraqi agents but the CIA didn't care. Chalabi was never entrusted with any secret operations. He was be the day to day manager of INC which was putting out anti-Saddam gray propaganda. We wanted Saddam to know about the INC just to keep the pressure on him. In 1996, the CIA was trying to organize a serious attempt to overthrow Saddam using the INA, headed by a former Saddam hit man, Iyad Allawi who had broken with Saddam and walked in to work for MI-6 in the late 1970s. The Brits eventually brought him to the CIA in 1992. Allawi had assets inside Saddam's military but Chalabi betrayed the coup out of jealousy. The INA was the preferred CIA instrument, its intelligence was being checked out by technical means, and its success would have meant the end of Chalabi's funding. In any case, Chalabi got caught fabricating information and the CIA cut him off. He merely went to the Pentagon and the checks kept coming because his fabricated intelligence on Iraq's WMD was so essential to selling the war, this from a man who had already failed four CIA polygraphs so that the agency had issued a "burn" notice on him by the late 1990s. In 2004, Chalabi betrayed to Iran the fact the NSA was listening to mail belonging to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). Milt Bearden called me in real distress the day the Iranian channel went off the air. But Chalabi's real goal was to get rid of the Baathists in Iraq, and get rid of the army. In spite of promises we had made to senior Iraqi military, some of whom facilitated our entry into Iraq in 2003, Bremer, Wolfowitz and Chalabi broke all those promises and the Iraqis joined the insurgency.

All the best,

Richard Sale"

76.103.124.31 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking on the Iranian issue. This man was almost single-handedly responsible for providing people like Douglas J. Feith and others at the Office of Special Plans with the faulty intelligence about WMD that lead the United States into the war in Iraq, a war that has made the Iranian position in the Middle East very much stronger. And he's heavily involved with the Iranian regime. Some say he's an Iranian agent. This highly controversial issue should be dealt with in much greater detail in this article. A good source for this information is The Man Who Pushed America to War: The Extraordinary Life, Adventures and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi. There's an interview with the author here. Wikipedia should really be doing a lot better on such an important topic.

"Initially, Chalabi enjoyed close political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government"
This half-sentence is just a hint on how far this page is from being fit for an encyclopedia: Other examples: And so on... At least this opening paragraph needs serious improvement, by people who know the subject matter much better than I do (which is not much of a challenge, really :))
 * When was that, initially?
 * Who were those unnamed members of the US government?
 * What nature were these alleged relationships?
 * fallen out of favor (whose favor?)
 * is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources: Since when? Which government bodies (or sources)?
 * Chalabi was also part of a three-man executive council... : who were the other two?
 * the Iraqi National Congress (INC), created (...) for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of (...) Saddam Hussein : well, fomenting is hardly NPOV.
 * it never had any influence or any following to speak of : probably means it had some influence or following not to speak of, as after being non existent (or unspeakable) this influence "gradually waned until the December 2005 elections."
 * " [Chalabi] is a controversial figure" very much sounds like a highly controversial statement.
 * Nearly all, if not all, of this information has turned out to be of questionable accuracy. The very phrase "of questionable accuracy" is of unquestionable inaccuracy, i.e. highly questionable and totally lacking any degree of accuracy. Do we mean "false" ou "unproved" or whatever: if so, why not boldly say so? And is it "all" or "nearly all" (meaning what?) of this info that is so questionable: is it for the reader to decide? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to provide information, rather than unanswered questions?
 * He is "said to have political contacts with (...)": Just who says so? What kind of contacts?

Stefan Ivanovich (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How is he allive?
Honestly with absolutely no threat intended im really wondering how it is that a political figure like him survived? Wouldnt the Saddam Hussein administration take him out? If there was trully a war about to begin with the United States and Saddam Hussein and his administration wouldnt the forst person to go would be the traitor of iraq? I'm just surprised how hes alive and clearly a United States suporter (and western supporter. This guy is loaded because of Saddam Hussein's toppling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Embezzlement, Theft, Misuse of Depositor Funds and Currency Speculation in Jordan
A section really needs to be added with respect to his embezzlement conviction in Jordan.

The following is a link from The Guardian on this subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/14/iraq.davidleigh

There is a wealth of information on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmed Chalabi. 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/20110202103425/http://chalabibook.com/ to http://www.chalabibook.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130707161206/http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/arrows_of_the_night_the_man_behind_the_iraq_war/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/arrows_of_the_night_the_man_behind_the_iraq_war/singleton/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803124926/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmed Chalabi. 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/20071012122946/http://www.atholbooks.org/review/iraq.php to http://www.atholbooks.org/review/iraq.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029203904/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ahmed Chalabi