This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Croatia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Lets talk about this page. Don't be coming along and deleting all of my work every day! Kukar 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am simple person which do not understand your changes but for me your only edit in this article is deleting everything connected with Croats and Croatia. Because of that we are having nothing to talk (you are POV editor), and I have not noticed that you have talked before your changes. ---Rjecina 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not erasing anything doing with Croats. If anything I added the Croat Roman Catholic Church piece and am trying to be fair here. Why are you and the other guy deleting everything to do with Serbs in Vrlika??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukar (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see... In your version of article this is deleted:

• "when the Croats moved there and formed a village"
• "probably during the time of Duke Branimir of Dalmatian Croatia, the oldest Croatian Catholic church with a belfry was built in Vrlika, and it is still standing"
• "influence of the Frankish Empire, which is noticed "
• "on the foundations of the old Christian Croatian church built in 9th century"

After looking your edits I do not even look version which has been before I only revert because your deleting is clearly POV. ---Rjecina 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this. Offical web page of Vrlika is speaking this:

In local legend Croats under leadership of Klukas has come in this region. Near source of river Cetina they have created village Vrh Rika. First official document about this village is from 1185.

From period 9-10 century is church of Sveti spas. Financier of church has been župan Gostiha probable from knez Branimir time. Church is one of must important croatian church from that period.

Durign Turks occupation in Vrlika have come Serbs.

Chetniks massacre from 1943

27 August 1991 Serbian bombardment of Vrlika hospital ??

Source for all this statement is [1] . If I want to write bad about Serbs I will write this last 2 things, but simple speaking I am not interested in hate speach or writing. --Rjecina 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You cannot confirm that it was Croats who moved to and settled in Vrlika first of all. That is why I put it down as South-Slavs 2. What Catholic Church in Vrlika?? The current church is built on the foundations of a mosque!! 3. 9th Century Croatian church?? What Sv. Spas? You are kidding right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukar (talk • Kukar 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. We can't? How do you explain the medieval graves of Croatian people and nobility in the region which is documented and obvious to all (the part of the article you shamelesly erased)? How do you explain that the Croatian kings were based in the region? And how do you explain the fact it was technically the heart of medieval Croatian state? South Slavs did move in, they were Croats. Your only reason for :3. See 2.

putting emphasis on South Slavs is the fact you want to justify the presence of Serbs who in fact first moved in the region after Ottoman conquests (16-17th century).

2. Did it occured to you that it could be the mosque was built on the foundations of earlier Christian church?

Ok it is time for me that say my thinking about yesterday reverts..

Language in which is writen name of city (after croatian) is not important for me and I do not understand fight about that. Only for example I live in Croatia and in wikipedia name of my city is writen on croatian and 7 other languages. With that I want to say that people in my region is flegmatic about that

In my thinking name of photo need to be something like: "Vrlika with old fortress and tower of ortodox church" because I see that on photo (if this is tower of ortodox and not catholic church). Will this solution make everybody happy ? --Rjecina 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

------

Rjecina. First off I am glad that we can have a civilized converstation without having to revert to an edit war. Now for the answers to your questions.

1. I think that those medieval Croatian graves should then be researched and referenced accordingly. I have seen nothing of that kind when I traveled in and around Vrlika, including the area around Sv. Spas in Cetina. If anything, right around the old Sv Spas are headstones with Cyrillic engravings.

2. Well if the mosque, which I have still to find the source as I have lost the resource in which it was mentioned, was built on an older Christian church which it is claimed here that it was from the 9th century there is no way of seeing if it was Catholic or Orthodox as the churches did not split until the East-West Schism in 1054.

Name in Serbian: Agree that it should be left. There was a sizable Serb community in and around Vrlika until 1995 when they were expelled or as some Croats see it "left voluntarily" during Operation Oluja.

Picture:I can agree with you that we should add Vrlika Fortress or even better "Gradina" to the explination in the picture. But, the steeple of the church is that of the "Serbian" Orthodox Church Sv. Nikola and I believe it should be left as such. Kukar 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graves are being researched and referenced. They are early medieval Croatian graves. It's a fact. Vrlika was in the heart of the medieval Croatian duchy (later kingdom). Thats a fact too. As for the church perhaps we can't say wheter it was cathlic or orthodox but it was certainly Croatian. I don't think it even said Catholic but Christian. Name in Serbian should not be left, Serbian could only be used in communities where Serbs are majority, Serbs were never a majority in Vrlika, not even before the war. As for the picture emphasizing Orthodox church in such a general picture showing whole settlement from a distance is clear POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.193.192 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool that the Serbian cyrillic spelling of Vrlika stays non-bold. Agree! Why do you erase the "Serbian Church Sv Nikola" from the picture sub-title? Thats why the pic is there? Kukar 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you tired of. Lets look at the settlement of the Vrlika region, Sv Spas history and the Serbian people of the Vrlika region in more detail. We can even have the 2 views represented on the page. This is going to take alot more research and an understanding between you and I than just quoting what the "Offical" Vrlika webpage says or even worse leaving it unquoted. I dont think we want to get into WWII and talk of massacres and bombardments just yet. What I would like to do is have an objective site on Vrlika. Kukar 23:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by putting something on the "Grobari" is something that is imporatant to the people of Vrlika and an example of not just the tolerence that Serbs and Croats exibited in the Vrlicka Krajina but also how both peoples lived, worked and even celebrated and respected each others differences especially religion. This is very important! Kukar 23:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to discuss the history section. It is unaceptable, and also annoying, that we change it every day from Croat to South-Slav. I suggest that we put South Slav until we find a common understanding built on historical proofs and analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukar (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am tired ?? Because of your thinking which is not confirmed with facts that in Vrlika region has not come Croats. In this article (and you agree with that) it is clearly writen that closest cities are Sinj, Knin and Drniš. On web page of Knin [2] you will find that this city has been 1 of Croatian capitals in 9 century. Please tell me how is this possible if Croats do not live there, and how is possible that there are Serbian and not Croats graves from that period. Because you do not accept this historical facts I believe that you are bad faith editor. My arguments are supported but Croatian academic community, offical web page of Vrlika and offical web page of Knin. On other side I have been never reading of Serbs in that region before your edits .. For me this discussion is closed. --Rjecina 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess if you don't want to discuss this I will just have to prove my point and come to an "un-biased" conclusion and support my conclusions with strong sources and historical proofs. I do consider the Croats as part of the south slav people and I do not see a problem with putting that until we determine who the first people to settle Vrlika "really" were. Maybe we are arguing over something very insignificant as it will be impossible to find out who really settled there first. I suggest that you become more receptive to having a discussion rather then closing the discussion. We are all friends here. Kukar 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I must say that it has been pleasure to work on this article with you. I am only sorry that we have taken too much space on article discussion page. --Rjecina 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give here in short, where do you cannot reach agreement. Kubura 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read through and find out? Kukar 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not a page about religion. The church information does not belong there. It's a geographic page with some history and settlements added in. Kukar, you cannot remove other people's edits at such a speedy rate with no talk or compromise, that is vandalism. Plus, the Serb population is only 4%. What are you talking about? This is an absolute majority Croatian town. --Jesuislafete 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach my friend. Why come to a page and delete large sections?? Why not come to this page and discuss why you believe that description of the churches should not be on the page. Other than these two places of worship and the Gradina what else is there to see in Vrlika? Yes, the current Serbian population is at 4%, according to you. What does that have to do with anything we are talking about here? Seems to me that you feel that if you erase the fact that the difference in years of the two churches being built is a way to get your point across. Kukar 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do realize you don't have to start a new section every time you post a comment. That's not really how sections work. one section per dispute/topic. Unless I"m reading this wrong, there should be basically one section here. --Cheeser1 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with this?Kukar 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable this guy just wont stop ruining this page. Kukar 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the user for violating the 3 revert rule. I would suggest that if he does it again, just let him have his way - don't bother reverting it back, he obviously is not going to stop for any reason. --Cheeser1 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That IP address is blocked and this article has been protected. --Cheeser1 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now we can talk on discussion page to make changes and not have to resort to undooing everyting. Cheers Kukar 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets work on this:

"In the 9th century probably during the time of Duke Branimir of Dalmatian Croatia, the oldest Croatian Catholic church with a belfry was built in Vrlika, and it is still standing. There are over 1,026 old croatian[2] graves around the church of great archeological interest.[3] Culture of that time was under the influence of the Frankish Empire, which is noticed in the archeological findings from the period."

a) What does it mean "Dalmatian Croatia"?

b) If the church was built during the 9th century it could not be Catholic as the East-West Schism did not happen until 1054, the 11th century.

c) This para is incoherent and does not make much sense.

About Dalmatian Croatia read this [[3]].

East-West Schism has not happened but there is clear difference between what will become Catholic and Ortodox church. If you have read article for which you have given link it is possible to read about schism in IX century !! If this is not enough please read little about fights between Rome and Constantinople religion leaders before XI century !? ---Rjecina 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'm having trouble understanding your argument here. Kukar 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you understand argument about Dalmatian Croatia.

Second argument has been that even in that time there is great difference between church under Rome and church under Constantinople religion control. We can delete that church has been Catholic but then we need to change that with Croatian church. If you want to do that I will not create problems. ---Rjecina 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still reading up on the Dalmatian Croatia wiki page. As for the church I'm not sure what Church you are talking about? There is no church in Vrlika built in the 9th Century that is standing to this day. Kukar 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church is in village Cetina which is in Vrlika municipality. Source of this statement is Srpski demokratski forum [4] It is funny how during Yugoslav wars Serbian propaganda has been saying that church is Serbian ?? Look this [5] . I am really interested to know how is possible for churh from IX century say that it is from XIV ?? Other sources which you have in article are saying that this IX century church is croatian. Looking you editing in article (part religion in Vrlika) I must say that this IX century church need to be in that. About fortress Prozor which is on photo look this [6] . ---Rjecina 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, yeah I thought that is what it meant. Just read the article from SDF. Check this site out! [7]. I don't think it is Serbian 'propaganda' says that Sv Spas as the Croats call it and Hram Vaznesenja Gospodnje as the Serbian Orthodox Church calls it. I think that both churches claim it as their own. The Catholics claim that it is an old-Croatian church that the Serbs took over as their own and even buried their dead on top of Catholic graves and the Orthodox claim that the Stefan Tvrtko 1 built it and is Orthodox as his subjects were Serbs. I was there recently and could not comprehend how it would be Catholic as the grave markings around the church are all written in Cyrillic and and the surrounding villages are 99% Serbian even today. I don't think us 'Wikipedians', if I may call us that, will come down to the fact of which church, east or west, founded the church. If anything I think that we would be continuing the centuries old argument. I think we should put down both sides of the claims?

Thanks for putting Prozor/Gradina down on the pic. That is a nice site that you sent me also. Real nice pictures.

What do you think of my additions to the page? I'd like to start building on the Grobari or 'Cuvari Hristovog Groba' soon. Whaddaya think? Kukar 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised that you do not have acrobat reader (!?) for reading PDF books (and similar stuff). Link of SDF is OK but you need to install this program. ---Rjecina 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, No I got it. I guess the server was down for a bit. Nice article though. Look above I added a link for you. Kukar 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Entry on Sv. Spas. I would agree to put it down as Sv Spas and the description of when and who built by as we can verify that. What I think we should do is identify the problem of both sides claiming it is either Serb or Croat. I am starting to believe that it is a a church that was built before the schism and rebuilt by the Eastern Church after the split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukar (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that I have not writen about IX century church that it is catholic but only Croatian church. We are having old croatian graves near church so it is without question croatian church. About Cyrillic letters on this graves I will only say that for me this is fantasy. Why ? In IX century ulmost nobody know to write Cyrillic letters because they are invented only after 869 (look Early Cyrillic alphabet). We must accept that population like borders is changed during hundred of years. First majority of this region has been Croat. Then Serb (after Ottoman conquest) and now again Croat (after Yugoslav wars). ---Rjecina 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'm not saying that those grave markings were from the 9th century at all. hehe. I don't think they would be standing. I would not agree with you that the majority was Croat or Serb at any time. I think we are talking about the same people. Kukar 04:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link which we have in article about graves is very, very good because it is saying ulmost everything. This are oldcroatian graves from IX - XIV century. If we read between lines we will come to conclusion that from XV century Croats are not anymore majority population. I having enough knowledge of nationalistic articles to say that this is truth (because source of statement is Croatian they have not wanted to say that Ortodox population is majority after XIV century). Similar things happen when Serbian historian need to write something similar bad ... ---Rjecina 04:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Kukar, as I've seen, you've deleted the entry about the cityname in this change.
You're not allowed to do that, that's vandalism.
Sorry that that fact (origin of the name is obviously Croat, in ikavian speech) disrupts your wishie-wishes.
Second, the Orthodox population in those times weren't called Serb Orthodox, but "Greek-Eastern believers", "grčkoistočni šizmatici", "arkači" (that's why I removed the adjective "Serb" in front of "Orthodox"). The Serb name among Orthodox believers in Croatia appeared in the 2nd part of 19th century, under the influence of Orthodox clergy, clergy that was taught in Orthodox seminary in (Syrmian) Karlovci, where the students were brainwashed with Serbhood. Also, that was the part of the top secret policy of Kingdom of Serbia, which needed artificial way to "create" Serbs on areas, where they never existed, in order to create the (fake) right for Serbia's territorial expansion at the expense of neighbouring peoples and countries. Serbia used Orthodox clergy as agents to spread Serb ideas among unliterate Croats of Orthodox faith.
Third, Kukar, have always in mind that that area was the core area of medieval Kingdom of Croatia, the core area, where the tribes that had a right and privilege to choose the Croat king were living.
Fourth, Kukar, it's nice to see you bearing the name of the medieval Croat tribe (Kukari), that had a privilege to choose the Croat king. Kubura 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't remove the lines about the Croatian War of Independence. That's part of the history of this city, and you're not allowed to do that. Such removing is vandalism. Kubura 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link that I've promised, Kukar. This is from book [8] (pdf file, 1,7 MB). Pages 223-224. It speaks about source Sumpetarski kartular:
"Tempore transacto erat consuetudo in regno Croatorum: erant septem bani qui eligerant regem in Croatia, quando rex sine liberis moriebatur, silicet: banus Croacie, primus; banus Bosniensis, secundus; banus Sclauonie, tertius; banus Posige, quartus; banus Podrauie, quintus; banus Albanie sestus; banus Sremi, septimus. Et de sex generibus Croatorum erant bani in Croatia, quos eligebant duodecim tribus Croatorum, et de aliis sex generacionibus erant comites in comitatibus Croatie: Kacigi, Cucari, Snasci, Cudomirigi, Mogoruigi, Subigi: isti sunt principales quibus pertinet banatum et mitunt sortes cui eorum sors dederit ...Isti fuerunt bani in Croatia de genere Croatorum a tempore regis Suetopelegi usque ad tempus Suenimiri regis Croatorum: Stephanus Cucar, Saruba (...Mog ...Cacig ...car ...can), Slauaz ...(Cu)car fuit ...esimir, Cucar tempore Suenimiri Suenimiri fuit Petrus Sn(aci)g banus. Om(nes) isti fu(erunt).“
In Croatian:
"U kraljevstvu Hrvata u prošlim vremenima bijaše običaj: bilo je sedam banova (bani) koji birahu kralja u Hrvatskoj, kada je kralj umro bez djece; naime: prvi, ban Hrvatske; drugi, ban bosanski; treći, ban Slavonije; četvrti, ban Požege; peti, ban Podravine; šesti, ban Albanije; sedmi, ban Srijema. A od šest rodova hrvatskih bijahu banovi u Hrvatskoj, koje je biralo dvanaest plemena hrvatskih, a od šest drugih rodova bili su župani u županijama Hrvatske: Kačići, Kukari, Snačići, Čudomirići, Mogorovići, Šubići. Tim odličnicima je patrila banska čast (banatum), a kome će od njih dopasti, odlučuju ždrijebom... Ovo su bili banovi u Hrvatskoj od roda Hrvata, od vremena Svatopluka, sve do vremena Zvonimira, kralja Hrvata: Stjepan Kukar, Saruba (...Mog ... Kačić ... kar ...kan), Slavac ... (Ku)kar je bio ... ešimir, Kukar u vrijeme Zvonimira, Zvonimira ban je bio Petar Sna(ači)ć. Sv(i) ti bi(jahu) ... u Hrvat(skoj).“ Kubura (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox monastery Dragović was built on the foundations of the older Roman Catholic monastery. [9]. Kubura 08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be on some serious hallucinogens Kubura Kukar (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kukar, I find your message down under [10], from 27 Jan 2007 and this one as attempt of mocking and offense. Kubura (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are too too funny haha! Kukar (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic is not official in Croatia, and more importantly, cyrillic is not in use in Vrlika.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? The city has been Serbian and Croatian. It has had two official languages and it certainly makes sense to use both. You have no good reason not to include it. Also, I have given you an official 3RR warning. You need to establish consensus before removing part of an article. Please do not edit war, and please do not become the new incarnation of this guy. It would be really sad. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know little about the issue (despite reverting many times, and basically calling me a vandal). The town has never been Serbian, i.e. part of Serbia. The town has been in Dalmatia and Croatia, with a significant Serb population. However, Serbian language has never being official in its history and certainly cyrillic has not been in use.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the town has both Serbian and Croatian influences. Nationalism is nice, but keep it to yourself. Both languages have a word for it, both are present in the town, and if you want to pick up where the vandal left off, we all know the old saying about if it looks, acts, and sounds like a duck. There is no reason or consensus to remove the teeny tiny little bit of Cyrillic there, so leave it be. And next time you want to edit war, think twice and review the consensus building process - do not revert a revert. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Both languages have a word for it". Cheeser, you don't know the Croatian and Serbian language, how can you say something like that? Cyrillic version is only the transliteration, nothing more. Serbs took the name from Croats. Also, name Vrlika comes from "Vrh rika". Serbs don't say "rika", they don't have that word in their language, Croats do. Vrlika was never part of Serbia, but it was the part of core medieval Croatia. Also, local Orthodox believers began declaring as Serbs in 2nd part of 19th century. Before that, written sources say that they declared their language as Croatian. Kubura (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see WP:AGF. Also, I consider being called nationalist as breaking WP:PA. Both Croatian and Serbian languages refer to the town (as well as nearly all Croatian and Serbian towns) by the same name. Serbian exists in both latin and cyrillic variants. However, as cyrillic has no official status there, only latin script is in use. Under your logic, many towns in Croatia could have similar naming convention, despite a total lack of significance of the cyrillic spelling. Please cite how this obeys: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Furthermore, this issue is further complicated by the fact that most Serbs in Croatia declare their language as Croatian. In Vrlika's county, there lives over 10,000 Serbs [11] with only just over 800 declared Serbian speakers[12].--Thewanderer (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline you point me to tells us that names in other languages can be used. As for your lack of WP:AAGF, I'll remind you that I never called you a vandal or nationalist. I said that promoting a Croatian-only writing of the lead would be nationalism, and that you were making the same edits as the Vandal. I can't make assumptions about your English skills, so I'll assume you misunderstood me and consider that misunderstanding resolved. As for the content itself, there is no solid reason to remove it except that you don't think it's official enough, or that enough people use it. That's not really relevant, and your sources are weak, in the sense that they don't directly provide a justification to remove the text (only supporting statistics for your flawed argument). --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationalism is nice, but keep it to yourself." I certainly know what that means. Covertly deriding my comprehension of the English language is also a fairly nice piece of etiquette.

"That guideline you point me to tells us that names in other languages can be used." The guieldine is not so vague. If there are relevant foreign names, then they should be present. The title is already in Serbian: both languages call the place Vrlika. Insisting on adding the Cyrillic transliteration despite its lack of usage (and thus relevance), does not comply with the guideline. If we add the transliteration here, we could just as well add it to virtually every geographic article on the territory of the former Yugoslavia (cyrillic "Zagreb" gives over a million search results).--Thewanderer (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take my assumption of good faith as an opportunity to assume bad faith on my part. Serbian is written in Cyrillic. Notice that Serbian language has its own Cyrillic "transliteration" in parentheses - it's a variant of Cyrillic actually - but that is actually the original "literation" (if I can use a made up word), making the Latin just as much a transliteration (for en.wiki's sake). (Modified) Cyrillic is the original alphabet of the language and is clearly relevant. Removing perfectly good information requires more than "I don't think Cyrillic is important enough." If you have a new rational for blanking all the Cyrillic in Croatia/Serbia-related articles I'd be happy to hear it, but this really isn't sufficient. I do thank you for discontinuing your edit warring though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian is written in both Latin and Cyrillic. In fact, one of the best Serbian news sources and most-frequented Serbian sites on the internet, B92 [13], is available online solely in latin script. The chief Serb minority party's website is also in latin letters [14]. Even in Serbia, where cyrillic is the only official script in use, at least one government ministry's webpage has no cyrillic [15]. --Thewanderer (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. The existence of a Latin alternative is still no reason not to use Cyrillic (or modified Cyrillic), which is the primary alphabet of the language. Either you want to delete the Serbian because the Serbian shouldn't be here (no valid rationale for that deletion) or because the Latin covers it (dismissing the more prominent alphabet for no reason). Why are you so up-in-arms about leaving in such a tiny little thing? Why does it detract from the article, in any way? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply too POV to put it there, and of no relevance. It propagates the idea that all Serbs speak Serbian and use Cyrillic, while this is not true. Within this county only 8% of Serbs actually call their language Serbian. Out of those 8%, how many actually use cyrillic? Very few, as latin is official. A quick search of Врлика shows that of the 88 websites with this term, the majority are Serbia-based or Wikipedia articles. Therefore, if the only usage of the cyrillic is in sources from Serbia, what is the significance to Vrlika? A cyrillic search of Zagreb gives a million results from Serbia, but it is not notable either.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google tests do not establish any of what you claim, especially when a large amount of the internet is West-oriented. Furthermore, you can't just bandy about "POV." What POV is it? The propagation of some idea? No, that idea is not anywhere in the contested text. Maybe you should examine your own POV and realize that you are making huge leaps in logic. It's the Serbian language name for the town. Nowhere does it make these assumptions about this 8%, as you insist. That is a problem with your POV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguments conclude nothing. You have not presented one valid reason for the cyrillic version to be up rather than "Serbs lived there." Do not hide behind petty wording and cheap shots--it's what people who have no good debating skills use when desperate. Now answer clearly: why should cyrillic spelling be on a page about a Croatian Dalmatian town with a small Serb population when I find it in no other Croatian geographical page of the same situation? And answer professionally please, don't let your emotions get in the way. "Either you want to delete the Serbian because the Serbian shouldn't be here" Dont put words in his mouth. And stop with the attacks, it's getting pitiful to read. "removing perfectly good information requires more than "I don't think Cyrillic is important enough." Really? Like what exactly? An letter from a PhD holder? Nice try. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONS / WP:AGF. I have nothing more to say to you if you're not going to participate in a discussion without being hostile, rude, and otherwise inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to assume good faith, when you assume bad faith on us simply for being Croats. This is clear, as you have twice called on an admin to "deal with us". We have not broken any rules. You are preventing us from making the edits which we have already justified. You keep citing WP:CON in you reverts, but no consensus had existed (except, apparently, your own opinion).

Just read the Serbian language article, and you'll see that latin script has always been in use in Vrlika, is currently in use in Vrlika, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be in use in Vrlika. Just because sources from Serbia use cyrillic, does not mean that it has any relevance to this town. --Thewanderer (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus existed? What are you talking about? READ THE POLICY. The status quo article has consensus support, or else it wouldn't exist. Consensus is required of changes to the article, not for me to change it back. In fact, once I change it back, you're supposed to establish consensus, not browbeat your edits into the article. Furthermore, if you continue to assert "it has no relevance to this town" you might want to consider the fact that you can't really prove that. On the other hand, we know they speak Serbian there, and there is a strong Serbian thread in the town's history. The Serbian language is clearly relevant - which alphabet we use should be an irrelevancy as to whether or not the Serbian language is included at all, and if the alphabet is in question, we should use the correct Serbian alphabet regardless of what article we're talking about. Once again, I'll ask that you please assume good faith - continuing to not do so is highly inappropriate, whereas it would make perfect sense to consult the administrator who has already played a major role in fighting the vandalism and inexplicable/anti-Serb deletionism on this page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice and assume good faith in others. Your tactics I am familiar with due to other users using the same thing: trying ot act "diplomatic" and "following the rules" while side-stepping the real issue. This is not an issue at all. The cyrllic spelling does not belong there, period. No debate. Just like Karlovac, Zagreb, Osijek and other towns do not have cyrllic. And no, cyrllic is not relevent at all unless you want to go back to the history of the illegal Republic of Serbian Krajina state, where they forced non-Serbs to leave and removed any traces of Latin script. You talk about anti-Serb sentiments over removing Cyrllic? LOL! Should I call you anti-Croat for forcing Serbian imperialism by inserting Cyrllic on a Croatian town with page with almost 95% Croats? --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No debate? So WP:Consensus doesn't apply here? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Jesuislafete is trying to say is that it is such an open and shut case, it should be resolved quickly and easily. However, you keep citing "concensus" rather than discussing the issue. You have not proven why the cyrillic is relevant. Also, consensus doesn't mean that all other Wikipedia contributors require your permission to edit the article. You do not get to decide what consensus is just because you reverted a vandal's revisions in the past. No concensus has been previously established, and the consensus now seems to be that the cyrillic is of no significance. Instead of attacking us and our reasoning at every turn, why can't you simply say why the text should be there? Until you prove why it's relevant, the text will be removed. --Thewanderer (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever guys, the Croats on this subject are engaging in a systematic 'game' of making sure that any mention of Serbians that prove contradictory to the Croat biased history does not see the light of day on the internet. Explain all you want from your computers in Zagreb and Split never setting foot in Vrlika never mind living there. Kukar out! Kukar (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed inappropriate personal attacks from this comment. -Cheeser1 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out to everyone here that canvassing for Croatian editors[16] to form a false consensus does not overrule the broader consensus: WP:ENGLISH, for example, as well as other conventions that I've already mentioned, make it clear that removing this information requires more than 2 or 3 Croatian editors (hardly a consensus, hardly NPOV) who very much like to dismiss the Serbian language and its presence (historical or contemporary) in these towns. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how much your 'writing' makes me laugh. So far, Kukar has done nothing except get on a soapbox to vent out his pent up feelings--Kukar, save that for internet forums, not Wikipedia. I for one, will not stand to have Chetnik influence on a Croatian page, if we are going to go down that way. Stop acting childish and realise that that removing Cyrllic spelling which in no way belongs on the page is not anti-Serb. I suppose saying Thank goodness for Croatian independence will be anti-Serb as well. And Cheeser1, realise that it is not against the rules to inform other users of vandalism that is going on in a page. Furthermore, in any high educational university, you are required to give primary sources as proof to backup your causes in essays. I have seen nothing but emotional crying. Please submit something useful. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you, once again, to stop making personal attacks. And if you want "something useful" try the half-dozen policies/guidelines I've cited. WP:ENGLISH for one, which makes a pretty clear case that despite what you and your two other Croatian friends might think, there is cause to include the Serbian language in this encyclopedia, believe it or not. That consensus trumps your little "consensus" that you'd like to think you've established (3-2, by the way, is hardly ever considered a consensus - it's barely a majority). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kukar has provided little, if anything, of substance to this discussion. Jesuislafete has not launched any personal attacks, but has only commented on the inherent POV of the content. Kukar on the other hand has just called the Croatian editors fascists. This is not acceptable. We are obviously not interested in removing Serb content at random, and we are not vandals. Also, Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy.

According to WP:ENGLISH: "any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)". This convention is obviously precluded by verifiability - an official policy. There really is no significant non-Latin native name for Vrlika, as there is no proof that the Cyrillic has ever been in any significant use here - Serbs in the Austrian Empire's lands used latin script. Even if all of the current 16 Serbian speakers use Cyrillic (which is highly doubtful), this hardly classifies as notable. The Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies overrule all of the conventions you keep citing. At the same time you haven't verified that the Cyrillic is of any significance, while you are also making your own conclusions that where Serbs live (or lived) that Cyrillic is in widespread use. Cheers.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.--Jesuislafete (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i also wonder why cheeser says I am throwing out personal attacks, when Kukar just labeled Croat users grandchildren of Nazi Ustashas. Really objective user, isn't he?--Jesuislafete (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So somebody not me calls you a Nazi, and that's my fault? I'm just as much interested in his personal attacks as yours. Get a grip. You can't honestly expect me to immediately see every personal attack in every part of this conversation, or else you're allowed to make your personal attacks so long as Kukar is making his own. That's circular logic at its best (or worst). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten past what a user like Kukar calls us. What's important is that he has lost any credibility in this discussion. This leaves it up to the rest of us to find a consensus. You still haven't responded to my last reply.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the relevant policy: WP:ENG. You are citing "lack of consensus" but I am not required to prove that there is a consensus before we follow WP:ENGLISH. Serbian and Croatian are both spoken there. Using the Serbian is appropriate. I will not speculate as to why the three of you refuse to stop picking at this extraordinarily minor point (not that it wouldn't be easy or obvious). Please let it go and leave the article as-is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question is what is wrong with official web pages of Vrlika ? On this pages it is clearly writen legend about coming of Croats in VII century, about official documents of Croatian bishop in 1185, about turkish destruction of town in 1492, about Ortodox population of Vrlika in 1692, about building of road between 1805-1813, about Franz Josef visit, about religion situation in 1876, about Serbian mayors 1864-1939, about destruction in World War II when town has taken 24 times by different military forces. All this is not writen in article !! --Rjecina (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who removed it? --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the recent history and cannot find it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that somebody need to write this data in article. Vrlika is having history long 4,000 years (there are graves from 1700 BC) and nobody has writen anything about that. My english is bad so I will not write about that. If nobody want to write about that I will write raw facts on this talk page and then somebody will need to put this data in article (this will be long article) --Rjecina (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can give a few important facts (with rough translation from a source, and that follow NPOV/V/RS etc.) I can try to integrate them into the article, since I speak English natively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oldest evidence for human life in this region is from 30,000 BC (croato-serbian this evidence is koštano šilo i zdjela)
• During bronze age on territory of municipality Vrlika between 1900 - 1600 BC there has been so called Cetina culture (Croatian name). From that period historians have made finding of old graves, bronze age sword and other smaller stuff. From finding it is clear that many people has lived in that region.
• During late bronze age Illyrians tribes Dalmatae are coming in this region. In year 9 AD they are defeated and annexed by Romans.
• In V century we are having comings of Goths. From that period there is small number of historical evidence.
• In old graves from VII century we are evidence of Avars, Slavs and Croats finding.
• I think that until this point everybody will agree that this is OK. During next 11 hours I will write about closer time period.--Rjecina (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the source for this (and possibly a translation of the name of the site/resource)? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from official page (only on Croatian). If you look this you can understand years but little other (if you do not know croato-serbian). You will find years 1900 - 1600 , Delmati, Rimljani (Romans on english), 5 stoljeće (V century), Goti (Goths), Avari (Avars), Slaveni (Slavs), Hrvati (Croats).

It will be nice if somebody know internet translator for Croatian ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Legend is speaking that in Vrlika region has come Klukas, one of 5 brothers under which leadership Croats has come in this part of today Croatia.
• All data about IX century is in article (part Church of Sveti Spas)
• During XIV century Vrlika region has been annexed by Bosnian kingdom.
• Coming of people from Livno to live in Vrlika (Čubranići and Berislavići)
• Part of today article under name Monastery Dragović
• Part of today article which speak about fortress Prozor and Grand Duke of Bosnia Hrvoje Vukčić. After him nobles of Croatian kingdom which has controled Vrlika in 15 century has been Ivaniš Nelipc, Ivan Frankopan and local man Mihača Nikolin Vitturi.
• In 1492 Vrlika region with church Sveti Spas has been destroyed by Turks. Čubranići and Berislavići are escaping to Turopolje.
• Vrlika has fallen to Turkish hands in 1522. Because must of Croats has escaped during this wars from end of 14 century we are having in this region Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs. During time Vlachs will be assimilated in Serbs (similar definition like in article Lika)
• part from today article Serbian Orthodox Church
• 1688 Vrlika is liberated and it is becoming part of Republic of Venice.
• 1692 there is 300 Ortodox houses.
• 1714 Vrlika is against taken by Turks and in 1718 is last time liberated from this empire.
• Between 1805-1813 Vrlika is ruled by French Empire. During this time she is becoming municipality in which is living 5218 people (in 1813). During that period French has started and ended building of road Knin-Vrlika-Sinj
• 1813 Vrlika is becoming part of Habsburg Empire
• 1867 Openining of first school
• 1875 Habsburg emperor Franz Jozef is visiting Vrlika
• 1876 Part of today article Croatian Roman Catholic Parish Church. During this time we are having churches of 3 religion (Catholic, Ortodox and Greek Catholic Church)
• 1864-1939 Serbs are always city mayors
• During WWII Vrlika has changed hands 24 times. Momčilo Đujić is in 1943 destroying Croatian houses. Similar to that partisans are in 1944 killing Croats. (this is POV from official pages because they are not speaking about killings of Serbs or this has not happened ??)
• During Croatian war for independence Serbs has taken town and Croatian population has escaped. In 1995 Croats are taking town and Serb population has escaped.

This has been story about Vrlika. --Rjecina (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I haven't forgotten this. I will try to integrate some of this into the article at some point soon. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vrlika. 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/20130424004337/http://vrlika.hr/podstranice/zupni_ured.html to http://www.vrlika.hr/podstranice/zupni_ured.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130826192259/http://civljane.hr/podstranice/crkva.html to http://www.civljane.hr/podstranice/crkva.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]